Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wreck Asskicker

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wreck Asskicker

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 02:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability BigDT 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Articles like this are an embarassment to Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 03:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. JRP 05:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Delete not-notable. - Motor (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?

How many of the Deletes on this page are just Bots?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• • About as many as the keeps. How many of the deletes on this page come from long-term contributors who contribute on more than one subject, as opposed to single-TV-show pressure groups? -- GWO

I have no idea, but I would expect someone of such exalted stature to be able to give us exact and concise reasons for their opinions instead of computer-generated comments. Could you explain the logic of why the opinion of a "long-term contributor who contributes on more than one subject" is of more weight than a member of a "single-TV-show pressure group" or to be more precise, a fan. Do you perhaps have something against fandom and the encyclopedic knowledge that we have on our subject? Because in the absence of citations that is all you are giving us - an opinion.--Kirok of L'Stok 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You want reasons why someone who contributes only on Star Trek might not be the best judge of the global importance and notability of all things Star Trek? Does this really need spelling out? -- GWO

Do I weally have to ask again? I don't think a long-term contributor has any greater logical facility and certainly not a greater knowledge of the subject. I think that's why they call them fans, y'know.--Kirok of L'Stok 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per Erik the Rude above SJennings 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fanfic is rarely suitable material for wikipedia articles and this is no exception. A merge to Star Wreck is also an option. Also, User:Kirok needs to read WP:AFG before making unfounded, unsupported, accustions of bot usage.--Isotope23 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You could well be right and it could be an accident that certain users use the exact same wording on every AfD. Mind you we could have different definitions of a Bot since WCityMike has pointed out that this Monobook thingy is a commonly used tool. Pity my most sophisticated tool is cut & paste. If your definition of a Bot is an automated programme that does multiple posts without further human intervention, then yes, I was out of line. Just how many keystokes does it take to create an AfD with one of these Monobook whatsis anyway? More than ten? Less than three? Enquiring minds want to know, unless its a secret? If this is not the place for my enquiry perhaps you could tell me where and who to ask? I weally, weally want to know.--Kirok of L'Stok 17:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, I can't help you there. I do everything the old fashioned way; i.e. type it out, even if I say nearly the same thing every time... and since I hate to code, I never have messed with any customization.--Isotope23 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft, this one is not notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nearly speedy. No assertion of notability. Possible merge into Star Wreck, if that's kept. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; article makes no claims to notability as already noted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the ultimately unanswerable beauteous genius that is Erik the Rude's argument. Vizjim 21:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge into Star Wreck. Not notable enough for own article Bwithh 23:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, despite what the keep vote has identically said for every last star trek fan article on wikipedia. Kevin_b_er 03:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.