Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek Expanded Universe

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 05:56, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek Expanded Universe

This article should be deleted as Neologism. Besides the many times the term is used on wikipedia itself, the term "star trek expanded universe" (as opposed to star wars expanded universe) does not seem to be used much if at all. Why are Star Wars novels called "an expanded universe" instead of novelizations, fan fiction, adapatations, etc.? Its because of the peculiar attempt at maintaining a continuity with each other above all else. This phenomenon does not occour nearly as much in Star trek derivative fiction, which makes little to no effort to be referential to other works of star trek derivative fiction. Original research: none of the statements cite sources, and seem very suspect to me in terms of being actually based on published books. In addition, I'm sure contradictory explanations of many things in this article were made by different novels, to focus on one implies it being the correct explanation which implies a non neutral POV. Fancruft: this article is fancruft, although absolutely atrocious fancruft articles such as styles of lightsabre combat have been previously kept. -posted by an anon ip user on 12 Jul 2005

From original proposer of delete: Thanks for everyones comments. I change my proposal from delete, to merge INTO the article "star trek, other storylines". The reason: doing so avoids the neologistic and possibily misleading term "star trek expanded universe". This would then also eliminate the implied opinion of any book or storyline being mentioned in the article as being the "real", "canon", or "in-continuity" version of a story. Some people have been saying that "star trek expanded universe" brings up around 200 hits in google but a large amount are wikipedia mirrors, the second most common is refrence to a pen and paper rpg called "Star trek: expanded universe".

As I see that as pretty much the same as withdrawing the nomination to delete the article, I move this be closed as a KEEP result. -Husnock 04:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a withdrawal of the delete request. The merge request can be handled on the talk pages but I will say right now that I'll vehemently oppose the merge. Cburnett 19:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP: This article reflects a large amount of information that has been put forth in Pocket Books over the past 25 years and also speaks of a concept that was purposed by D.C. Fontana, one of the leading authors of Star Trek. I agree that sources could be added but that is not at all a reason for deletion. This article is not by any means original research and is certianly not "neologism". In addition, "fancruft" is not a reason to delete a page as we have all seen at: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Starfleet ranks and insignia. -Husnock 12:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I've never worked on any Star Trek or Star Wars articles, so I've got no dog in this race, but the idea of deleting this article is ridiculous. It's good information. Babajobu 12:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The article that ought to be here is currently at the rather strange "Star Trek, other storylines". The content here should be made into a subsection of that article, with the resulting article left at STEU, or a better term if anyone can come up with one. Morwen - Talk 13:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong, speedy keep: bad-faith nomination. I don't think the author knows what a "neologism" is. -- Natalinasmpf 13:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Why are we wasting time on this? --khaosworks 13:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep because the article is still in progress. I'd also support a merge with Star Trek, other storylines. 23skidoo 13:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Dramatically emphatic keep, a worthy effort and a fine addition jamesgibbon 14:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Lucas and his minions specifically call Star Wars additions the "Expanded Universe". Star Trek has no such similar title. This article should be kept, but it's under the wrong title. --Scimitar 14:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - There is no reason whatsoever to delete this page -anon user post 15:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I also believe this nom is in bad faith, since this is the annon's 6th edit. 1Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- I think it's safe to say you can remove the VfD notice from the page, from an anon editor and with such strong response it would be pointless to clog the article anymore gren 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, sigh. Cburnett 19:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possible rename. Agreed that the TERM "Star Trek expanded universe" doesn't seem to be used much. However, the concept that authors have written about the ST universe beyond what we see in the TV shows/movies is certainly a concept worthy of an encyclopedia article, given the popularity of those works. I can't think of a better name for that concept, personally; maybe someone should go ask the Trekkies what they call it. Star Trek, other storylines is definitely a worse name (it's plain old factually incorrect, really) and should end up merged into whatever this ends up being called. Dcarrano 20:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP - jeez, louise, folks. There's deletionism, then there's whydoweevenbotherism. Microtonal 22:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, Star Wars is not and absolutely should not be the final say over what the point of an "expanded universe" is. A renaming may be in order, but the article should stay. StopTheFiling 22:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep "Fancruft" is not a valid reason to delete an article, incurable POV, verifiability, original research and things mentioned in What Wikipedia is Not WP:NOT, are valid reasons to delete, "Fancruft" is none of these. While "expanded universe" might be more used with Star Wars, there should be some term to describe the collective body of officially licensed but non-canonical materials produced for Star Trek. For lack of a better term "expanded universe" is what is used (it is officially used with Star Wars, de facto used with Star Trek). A quick Google search shows several hundred mentions of the phrase "Star Trek Expanded Universe", the vast majority of which do not appear to be direct references or copies of this article in any way, and are legitimate references to the larger body of Star Trek works outside the canonical TV and movie sources, thus the term and this article are encyclopedic and warranted in Wikipedia. --Wingsandsword 00:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Star Trek non-canon universe rivals any (and I should know, as I have, at last count, 208 ST novels.) I am a sad, sad man. Xoloz 04:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. -- Lochaber 15:26, 13 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.