Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominion War

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 Consensus is to Keep based on the view that reliable sources can be found and used to improve the article. Davewild (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dominion War

Dominion War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek:Deep Space Nine television show articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, unencyclopedic, and reads like a story. Redrocketboy 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Unencyclopedic is rather subjective and a non-reason. Subject matter is notable within the Star Trek universe and subject matter was more than a singular story line. It is also an underlying theme within much of the series and article worthy as it explains the largest subplot within the series. Pharmboy 14:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear in saying that it is unencyclopedic because it doesn't meet our guidelines, such as verification and notability. And if it is such a strong "theme", then by all means, show that it has some notability. Judgesurreal777 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. We can make it meet the verifiability guidelines by citing the episodes themselves. I think it's pretty clearly notable, being the most major plot of the series, but finding appropriate secondary sources may take some time -- a Google search brings up a ton of stuff, but sorting out the reliable sources can be difficult, and things like newspaper reviews or magazine articles may not be online. Some work needs to be done on reducing the in-universeness of the style, of course, but that's a separate issue from whether the article should exist. Pinball22 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It can be difficult, but it is required that that type of notability be established; we need information like the writers discussing how they developed the plot, what arguments they had, fan reaction from prominent publications, etc. That is what is required to avoid deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

comment I thought that notability only need be ASSERTED to qualify under wp:notability (ala: speedy). The issue would be verification under wp:rs, and there are thousands of sources but not all meet wp:rs. It is like picking out a particular needle, in a stack of needles. I'm trying to be sincere about this, and please don't take this wrong, but it sounds like the arguements against are mainly arguments for improving but don't qualify as arguments for delete. Pharmboy (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand its frustrating, but in order to have an article on wikipedia you must demonstrate some or in fact ANY notability. If you could do that, we would be in the realm of article research and improvement, or merging or something like that, but otherwise it fails the "should it have its own article test". You should, however, make sure that this article is already at the Star Trek fan wikis so the information is not lost to those who love Star Trek, like me. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am reading the actual policy, wp:notability, and fail to see how it fails. Whether it is cited enough is another issue but notability is asserted and supported within the article. Maybe a REFERENCES tag would better be in order for a few weeks. Pharmboy (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

If fails by having no notability proven through reliable sources. That's it. Its not that its unreferenced, its that there are no references to add, so there is no notability, and should be no article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't even make sense. A subject can be notable but not properly referenced (verified). Verifiable is not the same as Notable, and I think you are confusing the two. I can write an article about George Washington with no citations, and assert notability while not providing references (verify). Pharmboy (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I think saying that there are no references to add is making a big assumption in this case -- that was my point about them taking some time to find. There shouldn't be any urgency to delete an article that seems notable when we know it's verifiable -- tag the article as needing proof of notability, make sure people from appropriate WikiProjects are aware of the problem, and give it some time. Pinball22 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There has been a lot of time since the article was created to establish any notability, but all that has been done is assembling a massive in-universe plot repetition. There are a few days, they should use them to find creator commentary and that stuff, because I haven't been able to. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep or Redirect to Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - major ongoing concept of a major entertainment franchise, referred to repeatedly in not only DS9 but films as well. The guideline being quoted is not policy and the very guideline itself says it's not set in stone. 23skidoo (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but stub-ify. The DS9 Companion has a lot of material about the development of this story arc, and sites like TrekWeb and TrekToday have interviews (or blurbs of interviews) from actors and other folks involved with the franchise offering their like/disdain for the events. Ron Moore's post-Voyager interviews, which I believe are accessible via TGL, also delve into the arc's development. Plenty of reliable sources are accessible; trimming plot and offering this real-world perspective would be a good kick. And while I think a lot of the article's content needs to go, it would probably be beneficial to retain the edit history since the topic itself is notable. --EEMIV (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I trust you on the available sourcing, but should the article just be kept as is for the edit history? What's to keep it from stagnating as is until somebody eventually brings it all together? It's nothing but lots and lots of WP:PLOT right now, why not delete it as articularlly unacceptable now to have it built properly from scratch? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I was about to suggest some utility to retaining the edit history, but probably there isn't. And now that deleted articles link to the AfD for article re-creators to see, it's not like this discussion would disappear. Eh. Eh. --EEMIV (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you get the chance EEMIV, would you put one or two in the article? That way we can establish notability for all to see and then we can withdraw the nomination, as my concern, that no references existed anywhere, will be addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notability has been established (another source is Star Trek: The Human Frontier, as well as dozens of independently-written published novels); let the editors who would be using the available sources decide whether any of the present material is useful in rewriting the article or not. Unless the people arguing to delete are personally going to rewrite the article from scratch (in which case, there is still no reason to delete, as they can just replace the existing article), destroying the existing article by assuming it is useless to future editors is presumptuous. DHowell (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as plot summary with a topping of WP:OR. Beyond a token mention that the topic is fictional, there is no connection out-of-universe. It may be the core plot of DS9, but notability for this sub-work of fiction must come from acknowledgment, commentary, or criticism based in the real world. No WP:reliable sources are cited. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Stubify per EEMIV and start over based on real-world sources. The article as currently written is unacceptable, but, if WP:RS are available to salvage it and establish notablilty, I'll hold my fire. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:36, 9 December 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.