Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek (Reborn)

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 Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek (Reborn)

This is a new low, even for trekcruft, doesn't come close to meeting WP:WEB— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 01:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - some internet trek series are capable of passing WP:V - there's one that starred Walter Koenig (Star Terk: New Voyages) But this ain't like that. WilyD 01:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per above. Also, I can't seem to tell whether these have even been created or not. Some wording of the article seems to be in the future tense, in which case it should be deleted because WP is not a crystal ball. will381796 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Though I personally would LOVE to see Gary Sinise play Dr. McCoy in some fashion. 205.157.110.11 07:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete!

This is a hardworking fan series. Why in the blue hell should we delete something that we the fans are working hard on and want other fans to know about? We have on Wiki comic books and other things that worth while about reading about, but because this is a FAN series it's viable for deletion?

  • Delete. WP is not for advertising, IF this becomes notable then it can warrant a page. TJ Spyke 22:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Spyke Noteable? Oh, how oh so generous of you! And what would be considered noteable by this gracious gesture? Do we have to appear on Good Morning America? If this is the case, there are several hundred thousand entries on Wiki that aren't even worth mentioning. If beggers are going to be choosers, then what is the point of Wiki's existence in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs)
  • Spyke That's wonderful junior, but those rules are so broad you can drive a bus through them. When you come up with something more substantial maybe it'll hold water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.101.6 (talk • contribs)
  • First, don't call me junior. Second, sign your replies. Third, This little fan series obviously isn't notable since it can't pass any of the WP:WEB standards since every other internet subject has to pass them to have a page here. TJ Spyke 03:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Spyke

Kid, you're only 19, until you grow up a little, you'll be junior. I choose not to sign my replies, and WP:WEB standards could apply to anything. You could delete half of Wiki with those rules. Until someone gives my SUBSTANTIAL ruling against it. I'm gonna fight to keep it up.

Sorry junior, your arguement still holds no water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Wikipedia has standards and guidelines dictating what is eligible for inclusion. Otherwise, it would be a collection of whatever random information anyone wanted to post (i.e., the internet). And while I do disagree with some of the guidelines for inclusion, they are here for a purpose. If you want to change the guidelines, then please, contribute your opinion and back it up with facts and logic. Persuade other editors to support you and hopefully if you do it well, your opinion can become the Wikipedia consensus. If you want to advertise, do it elsewhere. Also, please be respectful of other editors. Thanks. will381796 04:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Will

I take offense to the "notable" comment made by Spyke. So I choose not to be respectful in that regard. Second, this isn't an advertisement. We aren't making money off of this, nor are we attempting to persude others to come visit or read the site.

If "advertisement" is a problem, then you're a hypocrit. Look at half the comic book references placed in here. All comic book related characters owned and operated by another company. Doesn't that constitute advertisement? If you want a wiki that is strictly facts, then enforce the rules 100%, don't pick and choose because "it doesn't suit you".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.70 (talk • contribs)

    • Those comic book characters are notable, so far this fan-series is not. Learn to be respectful kid, you still haven't given a valid reason for why it shouldn't be deleted. TJ Spyke 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Spyke

Noteable in what way slick? Just because they're making money? Or have been on the news? And who are they noteable to? The fans or those who never pick up a comic book. You're using standards that are way to broad junior.

  • Delete Fails WP:V! There are absolutely no references beside the shows home website. Shinhan 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Google hits for (link:www.startrekreborn.net) = 1. A website is only notable when 3rd parties are writing about you, not when you decide to write about yourself. Fails: WP:WEB "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  18:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment While I respect the work and dedication that Mr.Unsigned Whippersnapper and his associates are doing on this fan site, I think he is putting the cart before the horse in terms of notability. A fansite can be notable but it takes time, effort, and increasing familarity. Now I would agree that the nomination could have had a more civil tone but don't view this AfD as an indictment on the worth of your site. When the fruits of hard work and labor bring you success and notability, the Wikipedia community will welcome an article about your site. However, it is not Wikipedia's place to be an engine towards bringing you that success and notability. 205.157.110.11 02:18, 20 August 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.