Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation

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 of the debate was no consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 09:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: The Pepsi Generation

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry.

You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy.

Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!


  • Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article itself makes two assertions of notability - it was shown at a major sci-fi convention and it was featured in a BBC documentary. BigDT 02:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The BBC documentary sold me. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic, and not everything mentioned on TV needs to end up in Wikipedia. Erik the Rude 03:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If it's good enough to be in a BBC documentary, it's good enough to be called notable. joturner 04:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The {{afdnewbies}} template seems a bit pre-emptive and unnecessary. In fact, you're just asking for ballot-stuffing. joturner 05:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Votes have been solicited — diff link is in the edit description. — WCityMike (T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  05:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment So wipe the comment off the talk page - heck, I'll do it myself BigDT 05:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, this doesn't seem particularly notable. JIP | Talk 08:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. BBC notability claim unsourced and dubious. -- GWO
  • Delete, not notable, per GWO. - Motor (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Tepid Delete - does not appear to be overly notable, especially when compared to more notable fan films. --Mhking 09:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fanfic is rarely suitable article material, and this is no exception.--Isotope23 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • inactive on Wikipedia since February - all new contibutions have been only in currect crop of Trek AfDs
  • Delete, fancruft, if BBC featured that film, sources is needed, non-notable after all. --Terence Ong 14:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep BBC mention + its was mentioned on Futurama. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 15:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm in the process of researching a documentary on the fanfilm genre, and this film is one of the more popular films from the pre-WWW era - that alone is going to make showing some of these early references (such as an article on the film I saw in Starlog back in the late 80s) difficult, since the film was made in 1988, and essentially predates the World Wide Web. However, some Usenet references to the BBC airing are here and here. The film is definitely notable. TheRealFennShysa 15:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a well-known fan film. Everybody I know in fan circles has heard of it. Vadder 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this isn't a fan circle, it's an encyclopedia— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • New user - sole contributions have been initiating or voting in fan-related AfDs
  • Keep. Won a film festival. That's all it needs. Kafziel 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • No. It didn't. It won a film award at a SciFi convention. Big difference. -- GWO
That's not a big difference at all. It's an independent, notable convention. More than enough. Kafziel 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Sci-fi convention = film festival? Sorry kids, that math just doesn't work...--Isotope23 12:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. The SciFi convention is notable, but its film program may not be, and the BBC reference is unsourced and does not apparently appear on google. (Google groups doesn't count.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't see why it shouldn't, since it was a public post made by the film director, who would have known. There's some corroboration here, matching up with the description in Johnson's 1996 post mentioning the special, although the BBC catalogue doesn't list everything included in the special. TheRealFennShysa 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Even if those sources aren't acceptable for reliability, they should still be acceptable for establishing notability. Vadder 17:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete a short clip on "Star Trek Night" on BBC2 does not establish notability, that would, at least, have meant showing the whole thing (and I'm more than happy to accept usenet as a reliable source in this instance). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete- more Trekcruft. Slightly less non-notable than other Trekcruft nominated recently, but still not encyclopedic in my opinion. Reyk YO! 20:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete silly nonnotable trekcruft Bwithh 02:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above. - Hahnchen 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - clearly meets the guidelines for inclusion. DillPickle 21:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn cruft Deleuze 14:09, 14 June 2006 (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.