Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qo'noS

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 Keep. Keilanatalk(recall) 01:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Qo'noS

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Qo'noS
Qo'noS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I love Star Trek, but this article should be at a Star Trek wiki and not on Wikipedia, as it lacks notability and referencing, and as such just repeats, in an in-universe way, the plot of various Star Trek episodes and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Klingons are certainly notable and so an article on their homeworld is merited given the sci-fi context and changing names over various series. JJL (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment & Question - Notability of the Klingons is not inherited by their homeworl. Qo'noS would be worth including in the Klingon article, although the content of the planet article now is just plot summary. Also, how does the planet changing names from TOS to ST6/DS9, confer notability? Sounds more like trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Klingon Doc Strange (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely notable. Ausir (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Question - How so? Where is that assertion articulated in the article? --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. On most such things, I'd vote delete, but it's hard to describe this as mere fancruft, since "Klingons" have achieved a real world notability that even Roddenberry would not have expected back in 1966. As JJL points out, the backstory about the Klingon homeworld has changed over the years. Mandsford (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Similar comment and question as above: no argument that the Klingons are notable, but how is the planet notable? A changing backstory is just plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would have to agree with Mandsford, i am in no way a Star Trek far, but still when i hear "Klingon" i know what it is referring to. If this was a plant that they lived on, not their home plant, then i would vote delete. I do think it needs more sources, and know they are out there. Tiptoety (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just because Klingons have notability does not establish notability for this article on their home planet. Notability is established by referencing, not by saying it is. If you cannot produce any references to show that it is notable, your keep votes will be disregarded as you are ignoring entirely the nominating concerns. By nominating it, I am not trying to have a vote on whether or not its notable, I am inquiring as to whether there are any references to establish notability, and if there aren't, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree, but am saying that there are references, just watch Star Trek. I am willing to do some research and find which ones include this planet, but may take me a while......like i said, i dont watch Star Trek that often. Tiptoety (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, a more constructive way to address lack of referencing is to look for references, not ignore obvious notability and pretend that sources aren't out there. Having miscellaneous of WP wiki's dilutes wikipedia's comprehensiveness. In waht way is much Pop culture stuff less notable or referenced than some obscure diseases, pharmaceuticals, insects, asteroids, stars or historical figures that we aren't debating here? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Because the basic foundation of notability, referencing, is completely absent and all that is presented is a vague assurance that there may be notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Article quality is not grounds for deletion. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable, and per Casliber. Improve, not remove. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Agree with Casliber, this article can be referenced and just because it does not have them at this time does not mean it should be deleted. Notability can be proved through secondary sources, and this topic definatly has them. I have volunteered to find notable references for this page, but it may take me a while. I know this article passes WP:V. Tiptoety (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep An article needing references should have references added or an unreferenced tag added. It's not a reason for deletion. It's only a reason for deletion if sources cannot possibly be added because none exist, and that isn't the case here. Rray (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Then I look foreword to you and the others that are voting keep to quickly show that that is true by demonstrating some references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
We were actually looking forward to seeing you add some references. Rray (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If there were any I'd add them, as there aren't, this article is here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess the consensus will decide whether or not references exist. Happy new year. Rray (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 06:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep There are certainly plenty of references available for the Klingon homeworld and it's absolutely notable. The article might need improvement but this is not the place to ask for such. - Dravecky (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Klingon -- No salvageable/notable real-world content. Only bit of notable information about the *planet* I can think of is the Emmy the High Council chamber won for "Sins of the Father". --EEMIV (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to Klingon until sufficient sources for a more substantial treatment of the topic. --Polaron | Talk 21:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment for those saying "Add references"/Expansion of my Delete argument - The article has been without sources (and an assertion for why this planet matters outside of Star Trek's storylines) for more than five years. While there's plenty of material out there about Klingons, I doubt there are sources offering commentary/real-world information on this particular ball o' rock. Alas, the burden of proof/substantiation is on editors adding or restoring content, which editors (myself included) haven't done. More fundamentally, though, the difficulty folks face finding third-party references on this topic is that this article right now is entirely plot summary; there is no real-world information that calls for third-party sources. It isn't, as Casliber suggests, a matter of quality; it's the (lack of) any meaningful content. This aspect of fiction is not notable enough to garner attention from academic/third-party/"real world" writers etc., therefore there is no information about real-world significance or development (which is what Wikipedia, as opposed to Memory Alpha, is interested in) in the article, therefore nothing that can be cited. --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC) --EEMIV (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The problem with the article isn't notability, it's in the size and format. There is far more than necessary for this article (see Section 31 and Romulan homeworlds also). Most of Wikipedia, I'm starting to think, isn't notable enough "to garner attention from academic/third-party/'real world' writers". See Fuzzy dice, Arpita Mukherjee, Carmot, Chris Gibson (North Sea Delta witness), Cooties, Dibs, Fish of Oklahoma, Marcos Valdés, and Hate Plague for examples of pages that shouldn't exist but do. I am absolutely not saying that this article should exist because these others do; that would be in improper use of WP:OSE. What I am saying is that, as examples of Wikipedia's less-than-easily-referenced articles, they show that what this article has endured inasmuch as this "article has been without sources for more than five years" is not abnormal for Wikipedia. The threshhold, as I have been oft reminded, is not whether it is referenced as much as that it could be so. (I'm not as much a fan of that logic, but that's the "consensus".) This page could be significantly longer, larger, and more thorough. While not the best, it warrants at the least a hair's width above a "weak keep". There's so much better things to do than deleting articles of this size and nature even... such as fixing articles that need it, like the laundry list above...? Just a thought... VigilancePrime (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
And despite this long conversation, there has still been zero demonstration of notability, and after 5 years, the benefit of the doubt has passed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
But thank you for starting to take care of some of these others... like Hate Plague. That one in particular is awful. Still, the article in question here is a major part of Trek, and just as major parts of other such series are left, so should this one. Naboo, Alderaan, Death Star, Endor, Dagobah, Hoth, as well as Gallifrey, Mondas, Skaro, Telos, Vortis, etc. This is a better instance of WP:OSE as it is a reasonably even comparison and precedent for this type of article has clearly been set. I stand by Keep on this issue. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, let's not throw Deathstar In with that bunch, that article is coming along nicely...Anyway, as you yourself point out, these articles suck, so why begrudge us a first step in getting ride of them, which is getting ride of this sucky article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
To Clarify, I'm not saying that these articles all suck by any means! No, I'm pointing out that major planets in MAJOR SciFi (SW, Trek, Dr. Who) - and even some minor planets (and one forest moon) have articles. It's not a single isolated disturbance either, it's a longstanding accepted practice. In the same way, Romulus and Remus (Star Trek) and Qo'noS deserve an article. The precedent has been set through longstanding and widespread articles of the same nature. To the contrary, I'm not saying that any of the planet articles suck, but rather that they are all notable enough and, like this one, "worthy" of an article on Wikipedia. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Now now Js777, remember AfD is not about article quality but about notability...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT - WP:WEASEL - WP:BASH VigilancePrime (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as culturally iconic as you could ask. 46,600 ghits, which is pretty impressive for a word that doesn't exist. "vorpal sword" only gets 56,100. Hobit (talk) 22:18, 4 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.