Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 13:59, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek versus Star Wars

As Sparky the Seventh Chaos recently put it, Not notable; the two series are inherently unrelated. As kelvSYC put it, "Do we need something like Comparison of apples and oranges?" Is this or is this not a direct violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox? See also: Differences Between Pokémon and Digimon. How is this possibly encyclopedic information? GRider\^talk 19:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is my view that, while the actual argument itself is silly, my impression that this issue generates passionate debate amongst two very large fan bases makes it notable to me. --JuntungWu 19:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • One could argue, especially on Wikipedia, that there are equally as large fanbases for Pokémon and Digimon. Focusing back on the article itself, what makes this document encyclopedic? Is there a systemic bias towards sci-fi related material on Wikipedia, or is this a special case? If so, why? GRider\^talk 20:16, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, the entry is not a simple comparison of the differences between the two franchises, such as the Poke/digimon is and the proverbial Apples and Oranges articles I imagine would be. Instead, its an article focusing on the actual debate that has some interesting mathematical and philisophical points to it, and the internet culture that has sprung up to support it. Well known participants in the debates were actually credited for their contributions in official Lucasfilms literature, for example. Look at the Poke/digimon article and look at this one. Do you really think there isn't a difference in both the topic and quality? However, on the negative side, there are some who don't grasp NPOV and encyclopedic tone that drags down some of the article, such as the external links section. Would you find something like this in Britanica? No, but then again I don't enjoy randomly browsing its pages nearly as much as I like Wiki. Akerkhof 20:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Just so I understand you correctly, you agree that this article is not encyclopedic but it should still be kept because you enjoy reading it? Yes? GRider\^talk 21:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • No. Just because you wouldn't find something in Britanica does not mean that thing is not potentially encyclopedic, and just because something is not enjoyable to read does not mean it is. But that's not your argument either, I imagine. In my view, if it is notable, and if it's well written, it probably should be kept. I could see how reasonable people would disagree on both counts, but I lean toward keeping this, and I certainly don't see the connection to the Pokemon article. Yet I will not lose sleep if this article somehow fails a third VfD, either. Akerkhof 21:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep There have been two previous, unsuccessful attempts to delete, as an inspection of the talk page of the page in question would show. Iceberg3k 19:37, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep though people frequently editing it should study the NPOV and style guidelines. Akerkhof 20:43, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There are a gazillion places on the Internet to have Mac versus PC, Windows versus Linux, Nikon versus Canon, Star Trek versus Star Wars, etc, bull sessions. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and isn't one of those places. Find a chat room, kids. --BM 21:14, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• While I tend to agree with BM, the fact that it has been nominated twice already and cleared for keeping twice, makes me vote a keep. I believe two more reasons for keeping it are 1) there is in fact a newsgroup with rather high mailflow about it; and 2) the technical (dare I say obsessive?) nature of some Trekkies and Warsies, and the fact that both series are based on some variation on known physics, makes a conversation like 'could a tie fighter defeat a bird of prey' at least somewhat meaningful. Note that neither of these reasons is true for Pokemon vs Digimon, nor for Apples vs Oranges. Radiant! 21:20, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This issue is notable enough that a documentary has been produced about it. The rivalry between the two fandoms is well documented and worthy of an article. 23skidoo 21:46, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • After double-checking, it appears that no mention of a documentary is made within this article. Is this a home-brew documentary or a real documentary? People seem to be side-stepping the question, so I'll repeat myself one last time: How is this debate encyclopedic? GRider\^talk 22:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe that the point may be that the differences between Star Trek and Star Wars aren't encyclopedic per se, but the avid online community about it is (as in, internet phenomenon; and yes I know we have too many of those already). And you can't discuss the latter without explaining the former. Radiant! 09:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I believe the documentary was titled Star Trek vs. Star Wars. I haven't seen it in a few years. It aired on the Canadian cable network "Space" as well as I believe Sci-Fi in the States. I understand it is also on DVD though I've yet to see it anywhere. 23skidoo 05:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Do you mean "Star Trek Vs Star Wars - The Rivalry Continues", which is a DVD lasting about 80 minutes? Or still another one? And, yes Keep --AlainV 14:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although Star Trek is more sci-fi science and Star Wars more sci-fi fantasy, alt.startrek.vs.starwars has existed for a long time regarding the debate of these two series. The primary issue with the whole thing is that many fans wonder whether or not it was Trek that sparked the whole Sci-fi interest or was it Wars? Even though they can't really be compared at the same level or scale, they both were science fiction birthed or rebirthed almost the same time. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the article could get into non-encyclopaedic issues such as the question about which spaceship would win a conflict mentioned in the opening para, it keeps fairly close to a brief to write about the differences between two examples of an extended series of popular science fiction. It is encyclopaedic to compare and contrast literary style and content and their contribution to a genre of fiction. I would prefer a different title, though. Dbiv 22:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, this debate is notable enough to retain an article. <POV> According to the figures, Star Wars kicks Trek butt everytime, because the technology is a hundred thousand years more developed. </POV> -- Riffsyphon1024 23:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:11, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I don't see anything wrong with this, its a large net occurance and has already survived a vfd count once ScottM 01:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, there's a really obsessive amount of Internet literature on this that's notable in itself. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 08:22, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It would be a very bad precedent to keep this article on the basis that it isn't really about 'Star Trek versus Star Wars' but rather about the widespread discussion of this topic as an Internet phenomenon. That would grease the skids for all sorts of unencyclopedic, moronic, flame-fest topics that are popular on Internet forums to enter the Wikipedia supposedly as meta-topics. Canon versus Nikon wouldn't be about Canon versus Nikon, but rather about the widespread discussion of Canon versus Nikon on the Internet. Yankees suck, Red Sox rule wouldn't be about whether the Yankees suck and the Red Sox rule, but rather about the widespread discussion on the Internet of this subject. And so forth. Just because the Internet is filled with crud should not mean that we start filling up the Wikipedia with it. Not a good development. --BM 16:06, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Martg76 17:03, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not exactly like apples and oranges. Both shows are about the same thing, so it makes sense to attempt to compare them. They just happen to use different terminology, making an objective comparison difficult, if not impossible. — JIP | Talk 10:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article covers the debate, which is lame and nerdy but notable. As far as I know there is no notable "apples vs. oranges" or "Digimon vs. Pokemon" debate. -- Demi 12:37, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Keep. And I support Differences Between Pokémon and Digimon too. --Waninoco 21:40, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is actually fairly good. Jonathunder 22:29, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Keep. Well written, keeps NPOV and is a notable subject. —Neuropedia 23:04, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic --Paraphelion 01:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because Star Trek is obviously vastly superior to Star Wars in every way. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Let us not start another debate from this one, POV off. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:27, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, that was a joke. It's a silly debate, but the article seems encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• The whole thing seems unbelievably pointless. However, so are a great many real world conflicts. Pointless yet notable. Keep Sabine's Sunbird 04:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The existence of the debate is notable, even if the debate itself is pointless. Robin Johnson 12:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep keep it even though everyone with a brain knows Star Wars rules and Star Trek sucks
  • If you would like your vote to count, you'll have to log in and sign with ~~~~. Foobaz·✐ 02:41, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.