Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General

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. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starfleet Judge Advocate General (since renamed Law in Star Trek)

Starfleet Judge Advocate General (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is a synthesis from primary sources, i.e. original research. Does it have a place here if rewritten to fix that? Maybe, maybe not; I'd call it fancruft and leave this to Memory Alpha, but that's an aside. This article is OR and needs to be referenced from reliable secondary sources or deleted. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - all the assertions there are lifted straight from dialogue; there's no supposition, extrapolation or synthesis on this particular page. Primary sources (i.e. episodes) are listed rather than the Encyclopedia secondary source (which corroborates these statements in the various episode, character and JAG entries) to give readers a more useful link to related material. --EEMeltonIV 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's actually an unambiguous Delete argument, since you are effectively stating that it is original research. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - There have been a lot of Star Trek nominations that have seemed unfair. This is not one. The coverage adds nothing beyond what would be contained in individual episodes. Wikipedia cannot have an article about every position ever suggested to exist in every fictional universe. What are we to have next- an article on those with responsibility for cleaning toilets in the Star Trek Universe? The subject is not notable even within its own fictional universe. WJBscribe 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • An entier data episode (wether he is sentient or not) was based on this organizations existance. The entire TOS episode of Kirks's court martial involves this organization. One of the movies have the judge advocate demoting admiral kirk back to captain. You call that non-notable? --Cat out 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I call it falsehood. In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home it is the Federation President that demotes Kirk. There is no mention of a JAG whatsoever. You can find the exact dialogue at §267 here. Uncle G 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • My bad. Still JAG was involved on the non movie referances. --Cat out 00:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article is in pathetic shape. AFD is not part of the Article improvement drive process. Judge Advocate General was one of the first branches of starfleet to be established far into 1960's TOS era. --Cat out 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete-Per WJBscribe--SUIT 23:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP: Very clearly established in the episode "Court Martial" and The Measure of a Man where a Starfleet Captain flat out is addressed as "The JAG Officer for this Sector". Nominator should not be so quick to nominate these articles for deletion as was the case on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Security. nominated by the same person who is proposing this one be deleted. -Husnock 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Whether or not Guy should have nominated other pages is not relevant to this AfD. I don't think there is much doubt the topic exists. I think what I need to be convinced of is that it is notable? An article on Law in Star Trek might be very interesting. But why does this particular legal office need its own heading. WJBscribe 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  It is generally considered a negative sign if someone starts mass nominating related articles for deletion frequently yelling OR, Fancruft, <type reason here>...

  Well, star trek law is a very vast and smudgy area. This article is trying to focus on a branch of starfleet more than star trek law. Starfleet is obviously a notable fictional organization and this is its notable branch. The branch affected canon a great deal, lots of very notable events. We obviously have a stub that needs to be expanded. :)

  --Cat out 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, indeed, "Law in Star Trek" would be fun to write. And I am still trying to have fun on this site...trying, anyway. -Husnock 00:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Oh, you want to have fun? You must be looking for Uncyclopedia. Chris cheese whine 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  No, Nebor, I'm not looking for anything like that, so put the childish remarks back in the toy cheast. I've actually written some major articles for this site that this AfDers could never hope to touch. Have you read any of them? Check ouy my user page, most of them are listed there. -Husnock 00:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because the Schutzstaffel isn't a non-notable plot-devices made up for dramatic effect. Just a thought. Consequentially 02:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Messrs. Husnock and Cool Cat should, I think, be a little more careful when making assertions of bad faith. They should, perhaps, start by looking up the person against whom they make these accusations. Guy (Help!) 08:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you, nobility? --Cat out 14:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Screw WP:OR, tell me how this meets WP:FICTION or WP:WAF? Articles on fictional topics must be writtne in an out-of-universe perspective, with reference to the creators, real-world implications, and so on. This article gives a quick two-word reference to its fiction, and then charges head-first into all the plot summary. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what is suggested by the prose examples offered by Wikipedia policy. WP:FICTION also reminds you that minor characters, groups, and so on belong on a list of merged articles, not their own piece of wiki-realestate. Oh yeah. And using nothing but plot details from episodes you watched to establish what you believe are the norms for said organization is original research. Consequentially 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  No it is proper citation. Judge Advocate General of starfleet is directly addressed as such. The only thing I interpreted from the show is the existance of "Starfleet Judge Advocate General" as per exact quote. Article is a freaking stub, don't you WP:FICTION me. --Cat out 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Pft. A quick Google search for "'Starfleet Judge Advocate General' -wikipedia" gives 63 hits. The first page gives us non-canon fancruft, non-canon fancruft, non-canon role-playing rules, the Star Trek wiki, a (friggin hilarious) MySpace page, canon fancruft, non-canon fancruft, a Star Trek glossary listing, and more non-canon role-playing rules. How do you plan on un-stubbing it to WP:FICTION standards without using bad sources, or nothing but more episode listings? Furthermore, in an out-of-universe frame, how does the SJAG meet notability? Consequentially 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. WP:FICTION would recomend a merger not delete. My main objective here is to reach a non-delete. --Cat out 00:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The only way to reach a non-delete is to make the article notable non-crap. As it stands, nothing justifies the existance of a seperate article, and even a merge would be dubious. I'd support stuffing it into Starfleet, maybe under the section, "completely non-notable plot devices that, if people would bother to stop thinking of the Starfleet bureaucracy as real, stand no chance of ever meriting inclusion into an encyclopedia." Consequentially 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: ZOMG! JzG proposed another Star Trek article for deletion, how awfully evil and deletionist of him. I mean, who'd want to delete this? Apart perhaps from him. And everyone else that's commented "delete" above. Oh, and me. Beam it over to the bit bucket, per more than I'd care to mention. Chris cheese whine 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your comments merely speak to what you think of this article and of those who contributed to it. Bring on more comments about Coolcat and myself, we'd love to hear them. -Husnock 01:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete this type of article seems very... how should I say it.. crufy. In my opinion, articles on star-fleet ranks fictional organisations should be on star-fleet wikis, except when there is a lot of real-world impact. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Good thing this isn't an article about Starfleet ranks, its an article about a major branch of Starfleet mentioned several episodes and numerous books. -Husnock 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Sarcasm aside, my comment stands. Can you show any verifiable real-world impact as reported by a reliable secondary source? ---J.S ^(T/C) 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Sorry to be a pain but I'm having trouble with your it is a major branch of Starfleet, therefore it is notable argument. Starfleet is notable. Coca cola is notable. The manufacturing department of Coca Cola is clearly an important branch of it but is not notable enough for its own article. The same logic seems to me to apply to sub-departments of Starfleet. WJBscribe 01:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  (edit conflict where I repeat WJBScribe's point)Well, it's not a "major branch of Starfleet," because Starfleet doesn't exist. It's a plot device in a work of fiction. What I'm trying to figure out is how important a plot device it is. Is it merely a designator for the characters who are introduced when the plot calls for a court-martial or is the organization itself involved in the plot? JChap2007 01:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  The former usage. It does, unlike Starfleet Security, warrant an entry in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, mind. Morwen - Talk 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Question (and probably a stupid one) The plot of a Star Trek episode calls for a court martial. A JAG officer is sent in to conduct the court martial. Is there anything else to say about this subject (from reliable sources, that is)? JChap2007 00:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP per adove--9ers 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As much as I hate to invoke the word WP:CRUFT, Wikipedia does not need articles on Starfleet Warp-Manifold Pressure Washer Memory Alpha is thataway... --RoninBK_ETC 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Consequentially. What can you say other than "plot device used by Star Trek writers so they can can have courtroom drama scenes. --Calton | Talk 02:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  You could actually say an enourmous deal. I like the idea of RDing to Law in Star Trek and writing a great massive fascinating article. At least, until certian users try to AfD it! -Husnock 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Twenty-seven hits. Good luck. I think the phrase your looking for is not a friggin chance. Consequentially 02:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

They seem pretty strong hits though given that most are from the legal and not Star Trek Community. References amongst them to a number of law journals. e.g. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, Volume 8, Number 1; The University of Toledo Law Review, Volume 24, Number 1. Also a chapter in the book: PRIME TIME LAW FICTIONAL TELEVISION AS LEGAL NARRATIVE by ROBERT M. JARVIS & PAUL R. JOSEPH, EDITORS. Looks like a much firmer basis for an article. They're very narrow search parameters. Surely Husnock should be encouraged in his wish to write a potentially encyclopedic piece, rather than merely shot down automatically? WJBscribe 02:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I only see one of those articles, but I'm willing to accept the existance of others. I chose the search parameters because it happened to be the title of the redlink, so it was easy. Mr. Husnock is more that welcome to look for the right kinds of sources and what not, I'm just expressing my skepticism. Consequentially 02:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Pagemove and expand at Law in Star Trek (leave redirect). There is very little verifiable content regarding the current article's topic, and less-to-none in independant secondary sources. There is no shortage of content available regarding the broader topic, including plenty in independant sources, including some from the real-world legal profession itself. Everyone wins. Serpent's Choice 06:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep — A bad state is certainly no reason to delete; as it stands now it is sourced, of course we should have an article on everything.. but for this? Yes. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and go ahead and start up a page at Deletion Review. I would be vastly interested in an explationation of why the sourcing and tone of good Star Trek articles such as the Federation and even somewhat obscure things like Starfleet ships are so properly documented and don't rely on OR and speculation, while there are articles such as warp drive and the laughably non-notable Trek MUSE that don't even bother to try to meet Wikipedia standards. The former are admirable articles. The latter are fanon speculation. No one has a vendetta against Star Trek. There is no Anti-Star Trek cabal. The articles do not meet the policy. The repeated, willful refusal of certain parties to admit this and instead insinuate bad faith in nominating, voting, and motive is only encouraging us to find MORE article that fail the policy. Either fix these articles with proper sourcing or justify how this article requires a seperate article from a "Starfleet" article. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  There is probably not an "anti-Star Trek cabal" of Wikipedia users who want these things gone, I will give you that. But, I feel strongly that there are personal feelings mixing in with some of the AfD nominators stretching back to initial edits on Fleet captain (Star Trek) where material was removed, over and over again as "unsourced" even after sources were provided. The same user who was doing this then nominated Warrant Officer (Star Trek) for deletion and did so in a quick and quiet fashion, not bothering to contact or talk page those who had worked on the article. When the deletion was overturned, its parent article, Starfleet alternate ranks and insignia was also nominated for deletion and the nominator openly stated that they were upset that Warrant Officer was still around and would therefore nominate its parent article for deletion [1]. When that deletion attempt failed, one of the users involved followed my edits to Starfleet Security and, after I made an honest and innocent attempt to imporve the article, I was slammed on the talk page [2] in a highly uncivil tone, my edits called "crap" and "hogwash", accused of making up sources, and of committing a copyright violation. When all this is overturned on the Admin Norticeboard, less than 5 minutes later Starfleet Security is up for deletion. Then, after User:Cool Cat makes the best case he can, the AfD nominator of that article in turn nominates this one for deletion, almost as an effort to get Coolcat stirred up even more. Three years ago when I joined this site, something like this would NEVER have happened. People would have talked it out on talk pages instead of trying to get things deleted to upset other users. I guess times change but I simply don't think this is right. See this edit for a summary of these concerns on another user's talk page. -Husnock 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  I don't understand this tendency toward not naming names - I axed a chunk of the fleet captain stuff (repeatedly) because it was uncited. You've since provided a plausible citation (Okuda's assertion, I think some other stuff from print sources) and, voila, no more removal by me. The warrant officer material continues to be speculative nonsense/crap/hogwash, the only "citation" being to a fanboy website -- it should still be deleted. (Heck, the phrase "warrant officer" is never mentioned in all of live action Trek -- yes, yes, I know, you have these myriad resources back home. But, as Morwen points out, "I don't have it with me" doesn't alleviate the burden of proof.) Starfleet Security I voted to *keep* even though the article itself is still laden with OR and generalizations -- but, as I said on that AfD page, there's an underlying degree of usefulness to it. As for SF JAG, another keep -- and how about you take a look at its edit history, remind me who's done a fair amount of sprucing up.

  I don't buy the "it's personal, not business" assertion, at least insofar as I'm a factor. Until this spate of AfDs, neither you nor Cool Cat nor anyone else on wikipedia has really even registered as a person to me -- it's not worthwhile to keep that stuff in my head -- and the only thing that's stuck in my head about you is the Navy thing. I don't check contributors' names; I check contributions. If I were to have a gripe against you (outside of mainspace contributions), it's your lumping me in with the folks endorsing the more recent deletions. I have no problem AfDing something as WP:OR; I probably would not, however, AfD something Trek-related for WP:N (as these latter ones appear to be) because I am, after all, a geek -- I keep it closeted in the real world, so that part of me really goes crazy on wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 20:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  I am simply getting frustrated with the whole pattern than has emerged, and we can see the pattern up above. Also, these are just my feelings and I am sharing them here for others to read since its mentioned in several places that Coolcat and I are overreacting thinking that these AfDs are perhaps personal. You can not buy it, but I have a right to share my feelings. The facts are above and they are undisputed. And all the magic in the world will not change the fact that that Willie Santiago is dead and Private Downing and Corporal Dawson killed him. -Husnock 20:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per answer to my question above. There is nothing to say about Starfleet JAG except that when the plot of an episode calls for there to be a court-martial, there is a character identified as a member who runs it. JChap2007 15:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Then the correct vote would be a merge not delete. --Cat out 20:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it's not a vote. If a merge were to be executed, the obvious targets would be the articles about the individual episodes. These already discuss the courts-marital in sufficient detail. You could add the designator "JAG" to the officer conducting the court-martial, but you would not need a merge to do this. The reason to merge would be if you are moving text (so as to comply with the GFDL. JChap2007 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  How anout Starfleet. Material isnt moving outside of wikipedia so GFDL is not an issue. --Cat out 21:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  (Boldly going off-topic) The GFDL would require us to save the history of any text that was preserved. A merge would accomplish this by saving the history of the merged page at what would now be the redirect page, while a deletion would delete the history as well. JChap2007 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, JChap2007 and Elara. Has this made WP:AN yet ? When will it be at WP:DRV ? Three years ago there was VfD, not AfD, and references were unheard of. If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on original research-based fancruft — forever. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, etc. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomination.--RedMC 22:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Starfleet - hang on, someone's done that already. Awesome. Quack 688 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• I have merged the page to Starfleet. While JAG is a notable part of starfleet it sadly was never explored properly during the course of the series. I do not see a complete article spawning off of it any time soon. Anyone is welcome to revert me. But I feel this action satisfies all parties. --Cat out 01:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  I reverted for a page move to Law in Star Trek. I will make some major expansions to the page provided nobody deletes it. I actually now recommend a SPEEDY KEEP AND CLOSE of this AfD since the present article will seve as a template for a totally new article with merits in verified sources. -Husnock 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The merge was a solid idea, and something I could support. Now, you've just taken the same stuff we're deleting here and named it differently. There was consensus building for a merge, why would you change that? Consequentially 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am conducting a complete revamp and rewrite on the article to include aspects of the law from all different areas of Star Trek. No way should this be deleted now. The potential here is enourmous with both in-universe and real-world references. Already, I've begun to add items to the article and it will eventually turn into a very fine article. If only this had been discussed by the AfD nominator instead of just pushing to delete an article they didn't like. But, thats been beat to death. This AfD should be closed as the article has changed names and there is a huge rewrite and expansion in progress. -Husnock 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) Look, I'm happy to see well-sourced articles on fictional subjects here on Wikipedia, but the way you're acting unilaterally, you're really shooting yourself in the foot, and you're generating a lot of bad publicity for "the cause". Let's everyone take a deep breath and try this again...

• Husnock: There are several Wikipedia pages on Klingon, Romulan, and Cardassian culture, to name a few. In fact, Klingon law has its own page, with good reason IMHO, since it's well-established, and of major importance in several episodes and movies (across all ST series, not just one). How about you work on improving those existing articles? If you find enough good information on Romulan or Cardassian law to warrant an independent article, we can consider it. But a "Law in Star Trek" article that just lists different legal codes would be duplication - and if it tried to compare them, that would be original research. It simply can't survive.

• Please, please, please just give me some time. Don't declare yet that it "simple won't survive" before I've really done anything. I have excellent ideas and it will not be original research. I already have two real world connections which will be fascinating for the article: UCMJ affect on law in Star Trek and the "Samuel Cogley" defense strategy used by real world law firms (will research that one). This has enourmous potential. People just need to give it a chance and quit wanting to delete stuff so fast. -Husnock 05:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Deletionists: Husnock's convinced you're all out to get Star Trek pages. And the Klingon law page is in bad shape - I added a note that it needs references, and there are many more examples from the shows that could be added to flesh it out. I actually had second thoughts about posting it here, for fear that it'd get AfD'd immediately, but it's relevant to this discussion, so here it is. How about you show a sign of good faith, and not start AfDs on any of the articles I just mentioned? Quack 688 05:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Some pithy soul merged Klingon law to Law in Star Trek without much of a discussion. Certainly bold, but now the Law in Star Trek page is up for deletion. At this point, I'm rinsing my hands of this mess, as I have no doubt I will lose any remaining civility I have if this turns into a trainwreck like some WoW deletions. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 05:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A "pithy soul" and linked to my user page? I hope you are using the definition "brief, forceful, and meaningful in expression; full of vigor, substance, or meaning". Thats actually the first nice thing you've said about me. Yes, it was bold because I am certian now that no sound admin will delete this article. It is undergoing major reconstruction and will turn into a fine article when it is all done. -Husnock 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worth noting CoolCat has decided that since the article is merged, this entire deletion discussion is null and void. I'm very sure that when an admin strolls along and looks at this they will be vastly interested in your creative interpretation of deletion process, specifically the part where it says to be bold but cautious in moving, renaming, and merging.. So far, two articles (the SF JAG and Klingon Law) have been merged into one (Law in Star Trek) and then the deletion notice removed since it's a "new article under expansion". Some may find this bold and acceptable. Others might find it disingenuous. You claim it will turn into a "fine article". That means it will fufill all the requirements : WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:FICT, etc? --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on what Coolcat did, because I was in no way involved with it. I did merge the articles becuase I am full speed ahead with the rewrite and revamp. And the merge makes entirely good sense. A stub article on Klingon Law has been merged into a much article on Star Trek law. I see nothing wrong with that. So, as stated previously...give the article a chance. -Husnock 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I can. The rewrrite is a worthy effort, but still sourced entirely from primary sources, so still exhoibits precisely the same failings. Find a canonical source which offers a critical review of this subject, or take it to Memory Alpha. Wikipedia does not do distillations from original media. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Again...give the article a chance (even help with it, if you want). Just started the rewrite this morning. -Husnock 08:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So, this is what WikiStress tastes like, huh? Fine, I'll have a go playing both sides here.

• Guy: The primary sources are the canon sources. If it's shown in the original Star Wars movie that Luke blew up the Death Star, then that's it - it's part of canon. Done. You don't need a newspaper review saying "Luke blew up the Death Star" before you can accept it. OR would be "What was Luke thinking when he fired the torps?", "How fast was his X-Wing going?", or "How big is the Death Star, anyway?"

• Husnock, CoolCat, Re: procedure - I'm with Elara on this one. It's not for you or me to unilaterally say "This AfD tag isn't necessary anymore, I think I'll delete it.". I've had a go reverting the Klingon Law article, and you've re-merged it - fine, I won't get into a revert war, we'll let this play out.

• Husnock, CoolCat, Re: content - I haven't changed my thoughts on a "Law in Star Trek" article. I'm looking forward to seeing what you come up with - but if you find some sources regarding a race's legal system, you should put them in the article for that race. If you find so much information that a new article is justified by size, fine. And I do think Klingon Law has been the subject of so many episodes and movies that it could carry its own article. But you'd be hardpressed to find as much canon information about the other legal systems to justify their own individual articles. And any attempt to compare these legal systems in one article, no matter how well-sourced, would rapidly turn into OR. Quack 688 09:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

In the serries starfleet (entire frenchise), klingon (mostly on TNG and Ent), cardassian (ds9), ferengi (ds9) had been explored. Many minor races' legal systems were also explored such as the Edo. I however deiced not to ever contribute to articles related to fiction. Reason behind this is this very afd and similar others. --Cat out 09:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't say that! I'm still looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with! My main concern is where it gets added, that's all. Look - the main Romulan article is safe, okay? No-one can say they're an insignifcant race, they've been in the thick of things since the 60s. That means people can say it needs reworking or referencing, but they can't just wipe it out. So, if you find a properly sourced fact on Romulan law, put it there. It will be safe. Find another fact - put it there. Same for the other major races. Eventually, you might find enough to make a new article. But until then, the material you contribute will be safe - it will not be deleted. Quack 688 10:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I really think this AfD needs to be brought to an end. The Starfleet Judge Advocate General page is no more and there is no point judging the Law in Star Trek page until it is substantially complete and we know what content it will have. How are Husnock and others to develop this potentially encyclopedic page if they have to spend all there time defending it here? -WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 09:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not really. The current article includes, wholesale, the same content, plus some additional content which is either unsourced or sourced in the same way, from original media. That's still the same problem, I'm afraid. If we are to keep this, it has to be cited from canonical sources, not as a distillation of plot synopses but from editorial descriptions of the concepts involved. Ohterwise it is simply not permissible, per WP:NOR. My view is that this belongs on Memory Alpha, where being cited from original media will not be a problem at all. I'd not have a problem with a stub that said simply that the office of the JAG is the military discipline wing of Starfleet and then an external link to an article on MA, but this business of watchign the show and then writing about it directly is simply not on. This is nothing to do with how accurate a summary it is, from my meory of these episodes it's pretty accurate, but we don't do that stuff here. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Star Trek Encyclopedia, or other episode guides, can be used as a reference for the appearance of JAG stuff in those episodes, so there's no strict need to cite the episodes. I agree citing episodes directly is problematic, but in this case, unlike Starfleet Security, the prose isn't written terribly in-universe, and it doesn't do any speculation or educated guesses about the JAG office, it just lists appearances of JAG officers. So I think what I'm trying to say is that I disagree that this particular case is a particularly novel synthesis, any more than say, listing all the episodes in which there are Klingons, or the Prime Directive, would be : it can easily be sourced. The part in the merged article about Klingon law, and assertions about the legal system are more problematic. I shall see what I can find in my collection of secondary sources about this. Morwen - Talk 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Lets just assume 50% of the article is OR, deleting it would remove 50% of non OR material. Feel free to comment out anything you feel is OR. Do not clutter AFD process with it. If your concern is OR, you can always comment it out, move it to talk page and etc. --Cat out 14:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with above, time to end this and let folks work on the Law in Star Trek article. People should be supportive of this instead of trying to find yet further ways to declare this article unsuitable. Citing direct references to the law and then providing real world legal material that has appeared in Star Trek should be acceptable, IMO. The article can also be expanded to how legal pratices have been affected by material from the show and vice versa. The door is open for more than myself to work on this, also. Other editors can surely join in and make this article into something better. -Husnock 14:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as Law in Star Trek, with a rewrite, but gosh, we can't just claim speedy keep because the article name was changed. -Patstuart^talk|edits 14:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• so is this AFD active now? The article has been moved and expanded with different material but the AFD tag has been removed by a user, who has been involved in the heated debate above, twice, now. it was only nominated two days ago. there doesn't seem to be a consensus to speedy keep, so i'm unclear what rationale there would be for removing the afd tag. having the article content being moved/merged and then closing on that basis, would seem to me to be an loophole. so, either the AFD tag should be restored at Starfleet Judge Advocate General, or this AFD is no longer active and someone should close it. it should then proceed to WP:DRV. Morwen - Talk 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the notice; hopefully no one takes it down again. Patstuart^talk|edits 16:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If Husnock (or whomever removed it) is confident that the article no longer is eligible for deletion, he might as well keep the notice up so that the AfD can close per SOP with an endorsement to keep or non consensus. Would perhaps keep someone from starting an entirely new AfD process any time soon. --EEMeltonIV 16:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I never removed the notice, please do not state that I did so. It was removed twice by Coolcat, not me. -Husnock 03:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as Law in Star Trek without prejudice as to an immediate relisting. It seems that enough of the complaints against the original article are met, so that it would be difficult for the closing administrator to decide whether the current article meets Wikipedia requirements. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — without sources outside the Star Trek universe this article is patent original research ➥the Epopt 00:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  The argument of OR just got hit by a full spread of photon torpedos with a simultaneous phaser blast...a primary source has been added to the article. This can no longer be called Orginal Research by any definition. -Husnock 05:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  Umm. I don't mean to, you know, burst your bubble or anything, but one out-of-universe source does not an impervious article make. It's still 21/22 on stuff you found while watching the show. Consequentially 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  However, no one can now say that the article has *no* sources, becuase now it does. -Husnock 05:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. An article can cite nothing but primary sources and still not be original research, it just has to stick to describing the contents of those sources without additional interpretation. IMO there have been enough episodes depicting trials and mentioning laws and such that a reasonable article can be written on this subject. Bryan 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Bryan. If articles on fictional subjects must have sources outside of their fictional universe then most Star Trek articles are going to need to go, along with most articles about the Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Dune, etc, and that's something I tacitly disagree with TerraFrost 13:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as Law in Star Trek; has undergone major division. Concerns about OR are well-founded, but it looks like that's being fixed. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:06, 8 December 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.