Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabo (Star Trek)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was merge and redirect to List of games in Star Trek, a new article provided by Fayenatic. Very good work. Cool Hand Luke 08:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dabo (Star Trek)

Dabo (Star Trek) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - prod removed by SPA without comment. No real-world significance to this fictional game and no reliable sources establish its notability. The notability of the Star Trek franchise does not impart notability to every fictional element of it. Otto4711 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. No real-world notability, no out-of-universe information. Pagrashtak 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to new List of games in Star Trek, see existing proposal suggested last month at WikiProject Star Trek. For future reference, it would be appreciated if deletion proposers would notify relevant WikiProjects. If immediate action is required, just redirect to Ferengi as was done in the case of Tongo (Star Trek) - leaving the categorisation - as this preserves the edit history and nav links for the benefit of a better future merge. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • But the list of games would also require reliable sources that establish the independent notability of its constituent items as well as the concept itself. The game doesn't become any more notable for being on a list of other non-notable games (the only notable ST game that comes to mind is 3-D chess and that has real-world notability in addition to its in-universe significance). See for instance the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek in which the collection of non-notable items was itself not notable. Otto4711 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to a new list of Star Trek games -- see commment at the AfD for Kadis-Kot. Pinball22 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: is it possible (and desirable) to redirect to the Memory Alpha article? I've never seen a redirect to an outside site, but it seems like that might be the most helpful option if someone actually wants to read about this. --Explodicle 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • We could link from an existing article, but we shouldn't inter-wiki redirect. Pagrashtak 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, then I agree we should delete.--Explodicle 01:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. While it does not warrent its own article, it would still be useful. ffm 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)— Neverpitch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Neverpitch is mass voting on every AFD as a keep using the same rationale. vote stricken by admin as user is attempting to make WP:POINT
  • This game is notable at least for the role of Dabo girl (redirected to the game article), which has over 100,000 ghits. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • While I didn't look at all 100,000 of them, a cursory look through the first several pages indicate that the ghits are such things as credits lists for actresses who played Dabo girls and interviews with Chase Masterson who played Dabo girl Leeta on DS9. They do not appear to be about the topic of Dabo girls. Otto4711 15:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I would expect that to be the case. It establishes that the term Dabo girl is worthy of explanation within Wikipedia, either as a separate article or at least a redirect to an explanation within a longer article. Is that common ground? A separate article Dabo girl would requires some explanation of what Dabo is, either in its own article or a paragraph/section in a longer article/list. At the moment Dabo girl redirects to the article nominated for deletion; would you allow the content to be rewritten and transferred there, making the nominated article redirect there? This would preserve edit history and nav links. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't establish that the term is worthy of explanation within Wikipedia unless there are independent reliable sources that offer substantive coverage of the concept "Dabo girl." Having a lot of Google hits does not mean that the subject of those hits is independently notable. "Dabo girl" is only relevant in ST in the context of the game "Dabo." "Dabo" is only relevant in relation to Quark's bar (the only place IIRC we see the game played). Quark's bar doesn't even have a separate article on Wikipedia or even a dedicated section within Quark (Star Trek). Otto4711 18:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Request for clarification: Are you saying that Dabo (Star Trek) and Dabo girl may not remain in Wikipedia even as redirects to Ferengi#Culture? - Fayenatic (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on Dabo girl but I don't think Dabo (Star Trek) is a likely search term. Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Your draft doesn't include secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context either. In the future, you should draft in a sub-page of your userspace, rather than on the talk page. It makes it easier to sort out the edit history when it's time to move the content. Jay32183 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I've done what I can. Time's up tomorrow, and I don't expect to be available then. Let an independent Admin decide. I hope that the nominated article can remain as a redirect, and I still hope that the proposed List is sufficiently notable to be created; see also the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadis-kot. If Dabo (Star Trek) must be deleted, I suggest that it be moved to Dabo girl to maintain page history; then my revised article can be copied & pasted. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think you aren't getting the "reliable secondary sources" part. Memory Alpha is a wiki, it doesn't meet WP:RS. Finding sources is the key. Jay32183 (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to List of games in Star Trek, article is not sufficiently notable to stand alone, but would make a good group article. -- Maelwys (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of real-world notability. The notion that "In such a highly notable franchise, recurring plot elements are themselves sufficiently notable" is WP:OR —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEMIV (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 November 2007
  • Final case for redirection, not deletion: there are 14 articles on episodes, characters and actresses that link to Dabo girl. While I understand the logic above, It seems wrong to me that the outcome should create so many redlinks and leave the term without explanation. Redirection to Ferengi seems the absolute minimum acceptable outcome, not deletion. - Fayenatic (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
    • New redirects can be made immediately after an AFD as long as they don't meet the deletion criteria for redirects. Jay32183 (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you; I didn't know that. Even so, it seems unnecessary to delete the edit history. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
        • There's no reason to keep the edit history. If none of the content is kept, there's no reason to keep the history. Unless you argue that no article should ever be deleted, which you shouldn't be making. Jay32183 (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
          • But some of the content IS kept at the redirect target: List of games in Star Trek if permitted, otherwise Ferengi. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
            • Redirect does not equal merge. There are no adequate sources so a merger should not happen. When people say "delete" in an AFD, they mean "get rid of this article" not "hide this article under a redirect". Due to lack of sources, deleting the article is the only option. Jay32183 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
              • No, merger is also an option. I refer you to the quotation from WP:N in Carcharoth's post below. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
                • Without sources, there is no merging. Jay32183 (talk) 05:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • Which of us is misunderstanding WP:N? "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context". - Fayenatic (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
                  • To be fair, the content, even if merged, does need sources. But lack of sources is not a reason to deny merging or delete. Lack of sources should be addressed with {{unreferenced}} or (better) fixing it yourself. I'll rustle up a reference to add. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
                    • In a larger context, where is it not WP:OR, primary sources e.g. TV episodes may suffice. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
                      • What you're missing is WP:NOT#PLOT. The article is enitrely plot summary, and merging will create an overly detailed plot summary. A lack of sources is a reason to delete or prevent a merger. Tags aren't magic, WP:PROVEIT. Jay32183 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The game is shown in many DS9 episodes. The actual game is not so significant, but the culture around it is. This is the Star Trek equivalent of the casinos you see in "Casino Royale". I would add to the article that Quark recently hired a dabo boy (as suggested by one of his dabo girls) but that's outside canon. JIP | Talk 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The appearance of the game in in-universe episodes doesn't suffice in the absence of any reliable secondary sources that are substantially about the game. I note that the fictional casinos in Casino Royale (2006 film) do not appear to have independent articles, nor should they in the absence of reliable secondary sources about them. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge. This is verifiable non-notable information that can be merged to an article on a notable topic (a suitable Star Trek article, such as Ferengi or Deep Space Nine) to provide the wider context that is needed. Otto is partially incorrect to say that a "list of games would also require reliable sources that establish the independent notability of its constituent items as well as the concept itself". All that is required is that the concept being listed is notable. The individual items do not have to be notable. I'm not clear why Otto (and others) persist in spreading this misleading viewpoint, when I said this in the past and Wikipedia:Notability quite clearly states the following:

    "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context" [...] "For instance, articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ..."; articles on schools may be merged into articles on the towns or regions where schools are located; relatives of a famous person may be merged into the article on the person; articles on persons only notable for being associated with a certain group or event may be merged into the main article on that group or event."

    It is quite clear here that a merge into Ferengi or Deep Space Nine is viable. Carcharoth (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to List of games in Star Trek, or Ferengi (preferably the former), per Fayenatic. --Fang Aili talk 03:29, 22 November 2007 (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.