Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship Enterprise

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 speedy keep as obvious WP:POINT nomination. Already tagged for cleanup. — brighterorange (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Enterprise

Starship Enterprise (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS, unsourced, no reliable sources either to confirm the article's content or to support notability. Written from a completely non-real-world perspective, so fails WP:FICT. Reads like fancruft and original research. Quite apart from which, articles about fictional weapons? C'mon. Little, if any, assertion of notability. Due to precedent with RX-78, I think its notability is about the same, if not less. George Leung 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Clearly notable given the long, long history of the name in the Star Trek universe. Resolute 07:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep AfD is not meant to circumvent cleanup tags. Love the precedent though. Kyaa the Catlord 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Obvious Keep - Certainly notable and verifiable. VegaDark 07:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    Commment If its notable and verifiable, someone should do the needful and clean up the article. There are no sources, no attempt to fulfill WP:NOTE, and it is filled with fanboy cruft. I'm voting keep cause this should be easily cleaned up but it shouldn't have gotten this far. Kyaa the Catlord 08:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Is this a joke? Fails WP:FICT? Sure the article is poorly written, but Star Trek is one of the most popular franchises on the planet.
  • Keep But your right, it needs to be sourced. EnsRedShirt 08:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Procedural Keep due to bad faith nomination Violation of WP:POINT by nominator. See this edit. The nominator directly copies the nomination text from another AFD he disagrees with. (Actually the Star Trek Enterprise article is significantly better than the original version of the Gundam robot article in the other afd, so the nomination doesnt even make much sense - the star trek article here avoids the non-real-world perspective to a much more satisfactory extent for instance, and also has significantly better though not great referencing, and it avoids being a dumping ground for a mountain of fancruft the original Gundam robot article was). Bwithh 08:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC) Bwithh 08:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator has quite clearly announced his intention to violate WP:POINT here [1]. --Folantin 08:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although I like Star Trek, I have not looked at articles on it before. Of course this is notable and verifiable. I liked the links to real ships called Enterprise. It just needs a bit of cleanup and some sources. The nominator does seem to be trying to drive home a point. --Bduke 08:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep — Disruptive Afd, violation of WP:POINT. Requiring cleanup is not a valid deletion reason. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 09:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It is part of a fannish WP:WG, nominator may be making a point but he is not wrong in nominating this article. Unsourced original research badly cobbled together. If no one is bothered to bring this article up to shape, may as well delete without prejudice. A lot of the keeps are basically sentimental WP:ILIKEIT due to the Star Trek connection. BUT, if no one is willing to work on it for it to become a proper encyclopedic article, it should be deleted from Wikipedia. --Eqdoktor 09:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Its just a case of lazy complacency making for a bad encyclopedia. Just because its related to Star Trek does not give it a pass for automatic inclusion into Wikipedia. I consider this a wakeup call to improve the quality of the article. --Eqdoktor 09:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment A poorly written article shouldn't be a valid reason for deletion.RiseRobotRise 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Procedural Keep due to bad faith nomination as above. Seriously, WP:POINT is an important guideline. --Haemo 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment It's not making a point. it's about following the general wish, as illustrated by numerous editors who believe that these a lot valid
  • Speedy keep: explicit WP:POINT violation. --Pak21 09:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and Comment: Okay... so I agree at this point it is WP:POINT. However, if RX-78 does get delete, it does prove that such action is valid. I apologize for the inconvience, but from our point of view, Star trek is as much cruff as Gundam. either both can coexist, or both can't. In fact, in Japan, more people know about Gundamthan Star Trek... you know, the whole worldview thing, so honestly, I am real pissed at Gundam being targeted simply because it's not "notable" in Western world. Once again, I hope that the Gundam articles will not get shot down left and right, else next time it's done here, it's no longer a WP:POINT, but by a precedent.George Leung 10:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
As for Bwithh You can either improve Gundam itself, or stop being a troll. I would not mind setting it for only RX-78-2, since that's the only thing really important. No need to delete the entire article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Leung (talk • contribs)
      • Actually, I did not !vote to delete the whole specific gundam RX-whatever robot thingy article (I asked for one section to be deleted and another to be kept so long as its claims could be referenced properly) and there is no afd as far as I know regarding the main Gundam article which I have never commented on or edited. The burden of verifying the article rests on the content creators, not the commentators in AFD. I often run refs searches in afds but the provocative comments by certain Gundam Project editors in the AFD did not exactly encourage me to do so in this case. And notifying others that someone is abusing WP:POINT is not trolling. Bwithh 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Frankly, I don't understand the rush to speedy keep. A lousy article is a lousy article is a lousy article. Being related Star Trek does not give it an automatic exemption from Wikipedia guidelines for WP:V and WP:NOR. And if no one is interested in getting it up to standard, it should just be deleted without prejudice. The nomination is correct. In fact, if the original AFD is withdrawn, I will be reinstating it; and it won't be tainted by WP:POINT and it will be a good faith nomination. --Eqdoktor 11:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment And i can almost guarantee that if you do that it will be speedily kept per WP:SNOW. EnsRedShirt 11:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment Putting cleanup or other relevant tags on the article, or raising questions in the talk page, or even being bold and attempting to directly solve the article's alleged faults, is the way to solve content problems. AfD should be reserved for cases where the existence of the article itself is questionable under Wikipedia policy. Orderinchaos78 12:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep and preferably delete the disruptive user. CiaranG 11:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:SNOW. Orderinchaos78 12:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong and Patently Obvious Keep - Even if you can ignore WP:SNOW and WP:POINT, this is an article on a (if not the) common element in an entire realm of fiction which spans almost 50 years, countless mediums and has been the subject of relatively innumerable articles in third-party sources, many in respectable and reputable mainstream publications. Properly source, properly justified for notability. Written in an out-of-universe perspective, no less. The article should be kept indefinitely and the nominator should be drawn and quartered. (In a figurative, Wikipedia-esque sense, of course) -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 12:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Note I also note that George Leung has also made bad faith nominations of the A-Wing and Luke Skywalker from Star Wars. (these were speedy kept) Bwithh 13:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is just a WP:POINT nomination in retaliation for all of the mindless Gundam AFDs, (listed here) and I have already warned to nominator not to do this. But regardless, Gundam is just as big in Japan and east Asia as Star Wars and Star Trek are in the West. The three franchises should be treated equally instead of two being speedy keep because they are well known by English editors while the other gets deleted because of WP:DONTKNOWIT. --Farix (Talk) 14:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Superkeep Eh? .V. (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. I totally disagree with the AfD of the RX-78 Gundam, since its worldwide fame and importance to the story is comparable, say, to Luke Skywalker, the X-Wing, the Enterprise, Vulcans and Klingons, etc., but this is entirely the wrong way to go about defending the most notable Gundam articles from deletion. You say that Bwithh is trolling, and yet you fail to realize you yourself are trolling too, nominator. Maikeru 14:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't trolling in the Gundam robot thingy afd. I objected to the combative tone (in comments to everyone not just me) of one or two Gundam fan editors and I tried to explain what I considered good sources to show "cultural influence" should be, and apparently this is offensive to some people Bwithh
  • Speedy Keep as bad-faith nomination. This person also nominated Luke Skywalker for deletion, so... AGF and all, but this should give you an idea of where his heart is at. -/- Warren 15:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. WP:SNOW. 23skidoo 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Nominator seems to be angry about some Gundam thing or another. I'm not into all this pop-culture stuff, even though it seems to be what Wikipedia is good at, but this is nearly notable enough for a mainstream encyclopedia.--T. Anthony 15:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Duh. JIP | Talk 15:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination. May this article live long and prosper. Dekimasu 17:42, 13 January 2007 (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.