Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human (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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin close. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Human (Star Trek)
This article is a just duplication of the history of the United Federation of Planets and the Star Trek Earth history article, sprinkled with OR, and should be deleted for lack of notability outside of these which already extensively cover this topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Wow. That was both funny and painful. Absolutely dead-on with the WP:Original Research part, and how is a Star Trek Human different from a "real" human? Anything that's Trek-specific should be in the Federation article (as the Federation is plenty human-centric within Trek). The list of tags that could be on that article is nearly unending. VigilancePrime (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Memory Alpha Doc Strange (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per VigilancePrime. Any relevant info should be in the Federation article if it gets sourced. Timmehcontribs 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The basis of nomination seems erroneous. The United Federation of Planets is multi-species not just human and there doesn't seem to be an Earth (Star Trek) article. This article actually seems to be part of a set covering the major species of the Star Trek universe - Klingons, Romulans, etc. Given the notability of the fictional universe and its many works, it would be silly for the Humans to be removed from this coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of it is OR anyway, the second half for sure, and I'm not holding my breath for references. And as notability is not inherited, every article needs to have referencing to justify notability, and this has none. Besides, the salient points are already covered in the United Federation of Planets article; humanity has war, space travel, organizations leading to UFP, is all already covered in these articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well Earth governments (Star Trek) is the article I meant, and that covers most of the human history aspect, all the "biology" stuff is unsourced and probably OR. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The biology stuff is obviously based upon particular episodes. Sorting that out is just cleanup, not a reason for deletion. If you want a stack of sources to sort through, here's 831 from Google books. Given that humanity and its place in the universe is central to the Star Trek series, it seems a perfectly reasonable basis for an article which could be readily sourced from all those books. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Come on, you know we need actual references to close the AFD, showing google searches don't really help. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Try looking at the very first hit in my search link above: Star Trek: The Human Frontier. That's a complete book on the subject. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, no, that's not actually a requirement. The basis for a keep is consensus that sources exist that make the topic notable. Cleanup is a valid AFD destination. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Come on, you know we need actual references to close the AFD, showing google searches don't really help. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The biology stuff is obviously based upon particular episodes. Sorting that out is just cleanup, not a reason for deletion. If you want a stack of sources to sort through, here's 831 from Google books. Given that humanity and its place in the universe is central to the Star Trek series, it seems a perfectly reasonable basis for an article which could be readily sourced from all those books. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well Earth governments (Star Trek) is the article I meant, and that covers most of the human history aspect, all the "biology" stuff is unsourced and probably OR. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of it is OR anyway, the second half for sure, and I'm not holding my breath for references. And as notability is not inherited, every article needs to have referencing to justify notability, and this has none. Besides, the salient points are already covered in the United Federation of Planets article; humanity has war, space travel, organizations leading to UFP, is all already covered in these articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, needs a lot of work but I can see a place for a article on humans in the ST universe. The second half isn't OR is it? Its all episode references.--Him and a dog 21:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Sources have been shown to exist, and AfD is NOT cleanup. Remove OR, tag for references and cleanup and move along. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep among the more notable species there, so worth a separate article. Probably 95% of the books on ST talk about them, most ly in some detail. DGG (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not because humans are unimportant in the Star Trek series, but because the article is synthesis (and original research). I could find many sources that mention humans is Star Trek, but I could also find many sources that mention oxygen. Does that mean that Wikipedia needs an article about oxygen in Star Trek? No. Many other articles exist to place humans in context within the Star Trek universe. Additionally, I suspect the purported sources are about "human nature", not humans. (You know, Data wanting to be "human" and so forth.) AnteaterZot (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Colonel Warden. AFD is NOT cleanup, and statements like this from the nom lead me to believe he does not have the proper mindset at all when it comes to mass-nominating all of these articles for deletion. The typical opening argument for AFD from JS usually states the generic WP:N guideline or WP:FICT disputed guideline issues, but subsequent posts against his detractors tend to lead to him attacking the quality of the article alone and making arguments regarding WP:WAF and WP:RS guidleines, which is completely different from what the AFD was supposed to be about. A lot of these articles only need a cleanup tag, but instead AFD is clogged up with articles because despite their notability, they're 'poorly written fan pages' and just have to go. SashaNein (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are the one wasting time attempting to libel my efforts to eliminate non-notable articles. And as about 95% of my nominations for deletion have been accepted, I don't know what you are talking about "not having the proper mindset", as though cleaning the encyclopedia makes you a bad person. And "disputing" the fiction policy doesn't mean it will change in any substantive way, if at all, so lets not pretend it doesn't exist. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdraw - I am happy to report that notability, to at least a minimum extentm has been established, and that was the nominating concern. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- What do you mean? That was the problem, it had established no notability, and now it has, and I thus withdrew it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (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.
