Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Trek

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 delete. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stone Trek

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Looks like a non-notable web comic. No real syndication, no alexa rank, and no reliable sources. --Hetar 02:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 02:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - plenty of self-generated hits, but no evidence of notability ... please note that while the words "stone trek" show up in a handful of news articles, none of them are talking about this comic BigDT 03:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 03:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment - I call it as I see it - had you bothered to bring this up on a talk page, you might have had your concerns addressed before going on a wholesale deletion rampage. In the Trek community, these films you've targeted are notable, and those that AREN'T have already gone by the wayside in AfDs of their own. Now, to Stone Trek specificially, a Google search beings back over 16,000 returns on the term, practially ALL of them referring to this series - it's obviously been talked about. SciFi.com picked it as their site of the week [1], featured on G4TechTV [2], and is widely regarded as one of the better Flash cartoon series on the web. MikeWazowski 04:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
        • comment Well, that's really the point, isn't it? Any article is cherished enough to its own particular community (or WikiProject), and I'm sure in some sections of Trek fandom, various Flash videos and fan films are quite important to you. But AfD asks the Wikipedia community as a whole to comment. If these articles are truly as important as you say they are, then certainly they can stand and pass a consensus decision on notability on their own two legs. Now, as I'm rather sick of the ad hominem attacks, I'm off to go on a wholesale sleeping rampage. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - changing my opinion to keep based on MikeWazowski's links to media mentions of this cartoon BigDT 04:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I don't see it as Wikipedia's mission to document every webcomic out there. There must be other Wikis for this sort of thing. Reyk _YO! 07:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable web comic. JIP | Talk 08:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- GWO
• Strong delete not-notable. A double whammy of flashcruft and trekcruft... and it fails WP:WEB. - Motor (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable GassyGuy 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, This is THE trek parody cartoon on the net. Worth keeping just for the "Star Trekkin'" episode. JusticeCEO 11:38, 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 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable as both a fan-produced Star Trek parody, and as a flash-based web cartoon. --Mhking 12:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This is nitpicky as hell, I know, but it's a flash cartoon, not a webcomic. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 13:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. SJennings 14:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • inactive on Wikipedia since February - all new contibutions have been only in currect crop of Trek AfDs
• Delete, flash cartoon that does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria at WP:WEB.--Isotope23 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I would suggest some people actually read the standards for WP:WEB - the SciFi.com and G4 references Wazowski linked, along with a plug from William Shatner's official site, easily satisfy condition #1. For condition #3, distribution independent of the creators, I found this and this for starters - all easily satisfying WP:WEB. TheRealFennShysa 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I guess it all depends on how you want to interpret "non-trivial" from condition #1, and "...well known..." from condition #3. Personally, I don't think it meets either criteria.--Isotope23 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and fancruft. --Terence Ong 15:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - at the moment, does not appear to be notable -- Tawker 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trekcruft— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • New user - sole contributions have been initiating or voting in fan-related AfDs
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB, even without the star trek connection. new vote below — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Hetar, NN webcomic; User:TheRealFennShysa's sites don't seem like notability to me per WP:WEB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - just out of curiosity, if being hosted on one of the largest Flash sites on the internet, plus (using Wazowski's links above) an article on the website of one major American cable network and story on another established cable network aren't good enough for you, what is? TheRealFennShysa 20:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

A (paid, not free press) newspaper or general readership magazine review or interview would do me. If it's a notable production, it'll make the real papers rather than being limited to the incestuous, self-referential slashdotty world of skiffydom, flash animation and webfads. Otherwise it's no more notable than the work of film students. Given the self-selection bias issues of voters and the excessive reliance on Googling, I think it's only fair to demand much higher standards of notability for web-related cruft. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - per Angus McLellan. Site of the Week? That's about as notable as a newgrounds or youtube award. Which is to say, it isn't. - Hahnchen 06:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge (into Star Trek (Fan made productions)) or Delete without prejudice unless notability is asserted in the article. The site may meet WP:WEB, but the article doesn't at the present time, nor for any revision that I've found this year. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It's times like these, when an absolutely non-notable "production company" with no verifiable credits and NO Google returns survives an AfD, and yet something clearly notable within a community with legitmate references get hammered as "cruft", that I really wonder what's going on here. Just because you don't like the fact that an article has valid references is no reason to discount them or discredit them. MikeWazowski 04:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - That example was an incredibly poor close. The outcome of that result is incorrect. How an AFD with what seems to be no keep votes is classed as no-consensus I cannot understand. - Hahnchen 04:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly meets the criteria for inclusion, from what I've read. It's a very funny series, and clearly has a following. DillPickle 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Flash fanfilms are not notable. Deleuze 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Clearly, people disagree - see this category for a whole mess of "non-notable" (including several actual on-air TV series) Flash cartoons... TheRealFennShysa 15:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Flash fanfilms are not notable? You perhaps have a resource that backs that personal opinion up? Since you have chosen to base your vote on a generalisation, I shall address those generalisations in my rebuttal. Fan films are certainly notable, as can be seen from this article[3] in The Guardian. Flash fan films in the Star Trek genre are a bit thin on the ground, "Stone Trek" is definately the leader, however newcomers like Chad Troftgruben, who hit the topical bone with "Enterprise Flashed" and "Ahoyager"[4], and John Hazard's[5] "Starship Exeter, the Animated Odyssey"[6]are making a mark. But of course your generalisation was that ALL flash fan films are not notable! Including the 2003 "Run Lieia Run" (which won awards in two film festivals), the Star Dudes films? Perhaps you are talking about "Broken Saints"[7] or "Xombie" which is arguably the best of the current crop scoring interviews in Fangoria[8], Rue Morgue[9], Horror Movies Online[10], Movies Online[11] and Newgrounds Mag [12]. Still not enough? How about the news of a movie deal[13]? Once again though, perhaps your experience as a Wikipedia scholar has given you insights into Flash fan films that a mere fan has missed, eh? Could you enlighten us?--Kirok of L'Stok 03:39, 16 June 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.