Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship Exeter

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, but any chance of putting those sources in the article? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starship Exeter

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - the only media mention I see paging through google is Slashdot [1] ... there are tons of Google hits, but per WP:MEME, g-hits alone are not sufficient. So I say delete unless someone can find other evidence of notability. BigDT 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE AND REDIRECT to USS Exeter 70.51.8.60 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This has been noted in the fan community but is not as highly regarded as New Voyages or Star Wreck. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. -- GWO
• Strong delete, as non-notable fancruft. "has been noted in the fan community" can be used to justify the inclusion of anything at all. It needs notability outside of a small collection of super-fans. - Motor (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This series is second only to New Voyages in production value and sports strong stories and original characters. JusticeCEO 11:36, 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 An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable.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 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you seriously suggesting this home movie is known to all Star Trek fans? That's what your appeal to Guinness World Records is suggesting? It doesn't matter how big the superset is, a tiny subset of them is still a tiny group of people. -- GWO
• Keep This is hardly "non-notable" having been featured in the Star Trek Fan Club Magazine, and recieved a lot of attention when it was first released. Their second film was written by TNG writer Dennis Bailey. Nick Cook 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable GassyGuy 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fanfic is rarely suitable for wikipedia articles... unlike Star Trek: Hidden Frontier which is minorly notable strictly for the fact that it has run 7 episodes seasons (typo), this series has produced a whopping 1 episode, with 1 more on the way. Nothing in the article or on this discussion qualifies this as worthy of an article.--Isotope23 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's really nothing in this article that makes it any more notable than any other fanfic. -- Kicking222 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very notable fan film. Vadder 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'm afraid I don't see adequate evidence of notability, although I could be convinced otherwise. (Production values are not important.) References in mainstream or even entertainment publications would move it to a clear Keep. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Cinescape, Flak Magazine, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and USA Today have all published articles on Starship Exeter. I beleive there are others, but I can't recall them all off the top of my head. Nick Cook 18:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per User:Kicking222; as music would fail WP:MUSIC, same for books, born, sport, &c. "Very notable fan film" is tautological in my idiolect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as yet more Trekcruft. Nowhere near notable outside a small circle of dedicated Trekkies. Seriously, there's got to be another Wiki for this sort of thing. Stop burdening the 'pedia with it. Reyk _YO! 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as "silly". Or if that's not acceptabe, let's use the ohrase "non-notable fancruft". Vizjim 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nonnotable trekcruft Bwithh 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are good citations of "Cinescape, Flak Magazine, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and USA Today" articles about this production. If that level of verifiable proof can be established, I will change to keep. Ziggurat 04:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  Changed vote to Keep per Flak magazine, Sci Fi Wire, IMDB, and especially the Star Tribune article (cached version here). This satisfies WP:V and WP:WEB. Ziggurat 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Flak Magazine http://www.flakmag.com/film/exeternemesis.html Cinescape http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Television&action=page&obj_id=37390&type_id=270286&cat_id=270355&sub_id=0 Sci Fi Wire http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2003-01/07/08.30.fandom USA Today http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/hotsites/2003/2003-02-11-hotsites.htm There were other media outlets, but those links are no longer active. Nick Cook 06:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment, Criteria 1 of WP:WEB excludes "* Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site. * Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores." In addition, the NOTE associate with this WP:WEB criteria says: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." - Motor (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Minneapolis Star Tribune article was a major one, unfortunately it is no longer available online. The Star Trek Communicator article was a fairly extensive article, but that is only available in print. The St Paul Pioneer Press published an extensive article, but that is no longer available online either. All of these articles were written by persons "independant of the subject itself." It's had decent exposure, is fairly well known, and was so before New Voyages. Nick Cook 17:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition the IMDB listings are easily found. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478893/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0466584/ Nick Cook 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep google search had over 28,000 hits and returned references in Flak Mag and IMDB listing. Flak mag was a review, not just publishing a project press release. It was also once the Sci-Fi channels site of the week. There were enough links to convince this is very well known within Star Trek fandom as well. It seems notable enough. Ace of Sevens 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per articles/listing in notable online and print publications TransUtopian 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. As a TV writer/producer with credits on Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Insurrection, The Dead Zone, Wildfire and other productions, I personally consider Starship Exeter to be the most notable and most professionally produced tribute series on the Internet. I know several professional Hollywood writers and producers who follow the series regularly (and eagerly await Act 3 of The Tressaurian Intersection). The production values are second to none. I personally prefer it over New Voyages. The project's notability certainly goes well beyond the fan community. - Eric A. Stillwell EStillwell 19:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep - I have to wonder if we would be going through this if the words Star Trek weren't attached to the front of this article (and the other recent related AfD nominations), based on how much certain individuals are motoring around trying to justify legitimate press coverage as substandard or unacceptable. TheRealFennShysa 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Star Trek series. --JJay 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - these guys were getting noticed long before the New Voyages people. DillPickle 21:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• "Keep" - It is a thing done by people and is therefore worthy of note. I take exception to the people who think that using major publications as "justification". As an amateur screenwriter, I'll let you know that by saying you require some corporate newspaper or magazine to justify this for you, you're insulting tens of thousands of writers, directors, actors, cinematographers, et cetera, the world over who have never had their productions appear in some publication. James J. Champlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.29.3 (talk • contribs) 00:08, June 13, 2006
  • reply An impassioned statement here does nothing to affect notability and verifiability guidelines. If you dislike them, you need to take action elsewhere to combat them. — Mike • 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Verifiability is a policy; as long as it is a policy it should be followed, even when consensus is against it. On the other hand, notability is just a guideline. That means that the community can come to a consensus to disregard it any time it sees fit. In this case, I don't even think we need to do that, since the subject of the nominated article is sufficiently notable to survive any reasonable challenge. Vadder 01:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Query about the entire process Is there a Wikipedia policy against all non-professional films? If this entry is to be deleted for being a fan film, then ergo so much all other entries on such items. Or is it noteworthiness and existing media attention that are the criteria? Or is it that the article as written is not as informative as should be for an encyclopediac entry? I do not see as valid comparisons of the merit of the films in question to other fan films. Popularity and perceived quality are poor criteria for whether or not something is worthy for inclusion. -- M. Molyneaux 67.170.221.224 06:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• People seem to be arguing about our notability guidelines, such as WP:WEB.--Chaser T 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see that it meets any of our notability guidelines. I'm also curious why all of these fan communities and articles don't do more work at Memory-Alpha and related projects. You'd earn less scorn and AfD's over there. If this has been discussed somewhere, I'd be eager to read it.--Chaser T 06:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Why should they be scorned - that's rather strong wording don't you think? Because they are fan films? Because they are Star Trek? Because they are given away for free so you can't affix a price to them? Because they publicly admit to being a minor infringement of Copyright and Trademark? Because the very real benefits they give the IP owners in return are ignored? Because they represent an embarrassing reminder of civil libertarian questions posed by electronic media?
  • ALL of those points make these fan films worthy of note NOT scorn. Oh, and Memory Alpha? They have started a page but it is in danger of AfD because they aren't Canon! You people are trying to bar us because we're too Trekkie and they're wanting to bar us because we aren't Trekie enough! it'd be funny if it didn't fly in the face of objectivity and fair dealing--Kirok of L'Stok 14:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Hey, I didn't say the articles were worthy of scorn, I was just commenting on the votes in the many AfD's that were brought up a week ago. In any case, thanks for answering my question.--Chaser T 18:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete even more non-notable fanfilms Deleuze 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • So do you mean that THIS fan film is non-notable or ALL fan films are non-notable. What makes you say that it is non-notable after reading the above? Which fan film is more notable than Starship Exeter in your opinion? You have seen it haven't you? Or are you condemning it sight unseen? I'd really like you to share your critique with us - As Gene Hendricks of "Tales of the Seventh Fleet" pointed out one time, fan film producers are used to getting negative feedback but it is welcome if it is specific so that improvements can be made.--Kirok of L'Stok 14:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I appreciate your enthusiasm, but this clearly fails WP:WEB in my mind. Deleuze 23:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
      • How so? Please be specific. The people who are voting to keep this and all the other articles that have been bulk AfD'd are giving detailed and verifiable responses whereas the majority of the deletes are value judgements ("fancruft" indeed! <snort>) by people who are not backing them up with examples. What happened to verifiability? The least we can expect is that you will grace us with specific instances that we might see the error of our ways.--Kirok of L'Stok 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment is this AfD going to be closed soon? It appears to be a no consensus keep to me (I'm biased, obviously, as I voted keep!). Ziggurat 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

By my rough count, 16 deletes, 14 keeps, 1 merge, 1 neutral as of the timestamp on this line. — Mike • 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope whoever tallies the votes will look into the posting histories of some voters. After a cursory inspection, a large number of those voting keep appear to have few or no votes outside of the recent crop of AfDs. Deleuze 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's a concern of yours, it's not out of line for you to note it yourself. Just do it like this:

• Person's Vote
  • this vote is this user's first edit
  • or
  • this is this user's 10th edit; the other 9 were also AfDs
  • or
  • whatever clerical note is appropriate — but should be worded completely neutrally

And so on. — Mike • 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Could someone please explain what this has to do with the validity of a persons vote? Am I to infer that the vote of someone who has voted on many AfD's will be given more weight than the vote of someone who knows something about the subject? So that it is more important to be a scholar of Wikipedia than an expert on fan films? So that the opinion of, for example, Eric A. Stillwell "a TV writer/producer with credits on Star Trek: TNG, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Insurrection, The Dead Zone, Wildfire and other productions" will be given less weight than the honeourable Deleuze, who I am assuming from his post is a frequenter of AfD's? I can respect that there is a need for woodcutters in a forest but I most certainly hope that they will NOT be given any greater standing than those who plant and tend the forest. Is this Wikipedia policy? I know it is not a democracy, but gimme a break!--Kirok of L'Stok 09:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

AfDs are not straight votes. A lot of new or anonymous votes would indicate ballot stuffing. Please review WP:DEL and assume good faith. Deleuze 09:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good faith has nothing to do with it, I am talking logic here. I assumed that AfDs were not straight votes, however if this were so then it would mean that all this hoohaa about "ballot stuffing" would be background noise wouldn't it? This also means that Mike's countup of votes on 00:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC) is useless. I can also assume that a vote that does not reference specific instances and examples to support it will be given less weight than one which does? Good! Then I feel that ayes have it! Since all we have had from the nays seem to be unreferenced and unsupported opinions like "this clearly fails WP:WEB in my mind." and the classic "Star Trek fancruft.". Unless you have some verifiable instances and not opinions?--Kirok of L'Stok 11:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, the original Exeter production predates some of the more well known fanfilms out, but that should not diminish its significance. Unfortunately, since I am a newly registered user of Wikipedia after editing for years anonymously, some appear prepared to automatically discount my vote because I haven't been a member long enough. user:MDonfield

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.