Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Starship Trooper

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 Delete and recreate as a redirect to Starship Troopers. Black Kite 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Starship Trooper

The Starship Trooper (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Per WP:MADEUP, the user that created the article is the same name of the one that posted it on the website that is in the links. Also, I'd like to point out that it's not quite Dark Side of the Rainbow. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In my defense i would have to say The Starship Trooper is a local hit up here in my hometown in alaska, we have a big film festival every year and many of my submissions are quite popular. At one point everything is made up, im sure Dark Side of the Rainbow didnt get popular for a long time. Hell it isnt even that popular now and it still gets a page. If you go to the Darkside Of The Rainbow page you can see a list of other synchronicities by other bands and movies and they dont have a page either. If you have watched dark side of the rainbow, you have probably seen the definitive list definitive list which lists how many "rainbow connections" occur (there are 105). The starship trooper has 124 rainbow connections recorded thus far, this is only counting the first five songs played. the cd is played two and a half times which is about 23 songs. Try Dark side and then try this, i think you would know then. --XgWiZx (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, everything was once made up by someone. I direct you to WP:SCRABBLE. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow somebody cited google news, ummm try looking up Dark side of the rainbow in google news tell me if you find anything.--XgWiZx (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. You get two hits...Anyway, something isn't notable until it's popular enough to be commented on by reliable sources. We don't go around guessing whether something will be notable one day (heck, we even have a policy on it), since that's not something that can be judged in any remotely objective way. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

So there can't be a wikipedia article on something until it is mainstream? What would you consider reliable recorces for a synchronicity? Rollingstone Magazine, MTV, MSNBC, 4chan, Your local newspaper that probably hasnt heard of synchronicity (unless its the hit album by The Police)? --XgWiZx (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. Bad question; yes; I have no opinion; yes; no; no. And it doesn't have to be mainstream. But until at least one reliable source has covered it, you can basically consider the Wikipedia community to be unconvinced that this is worth mentioning anywhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wanted: a reliable source. check here and get back to this topic ASAP. Also a side note, wikipedia isnt a 100% reliable rescource. Most colleges wont allow you to use wikipedia because it can be edited by anybody. sure there is probably gonna be a comment on how it is policed and anything new that is unreliable, like someone edited that bill gates owns one third of the moon, would be removed.--XgWiZx (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1, that video isn't a reliable source and it doesn't confer notability. 2, it's an illegal copyright violation. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
no third or fourth point?. so you admit that wikipedia isnt a reliable resource or is it the undoubtable truth. --XgWiZx (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't need to admit it. It says that at the bottom on every page. Wikipedia:General disclaimer. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

whoops typing error, i want a reliable sorce such as rolling stone magazine or the such to check that out and tell me wether or not its reliable. Not saying the clip is reliable the clip is what it is. --XgWiZx (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Quote WP:RS"Wikipedia:Reliable sources; This page is a guideline, it is not a policy." So when did it become a policy? --XgWiZx (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's not strict policy. We are trying to build a good encyclopedia here, and policies and things can get in the way of that. That's why we bring things for discussion, like here. Others use those guidelines as part of their reasoning on whether something should or shouldn't be apart of the wiki. I feel this article also fails, WP:OR. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete not even remotely notable --SJK (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Starship Troopers; it's at least conceivable that someone looking for the Heinlein novel would garble the title this way. JamesMLane t c 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not the slightest hint of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Hobartimus (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Starship Troopers as useful search term. Current article about something made up in one day should have been prodded, at least, if not speedied. B.Wind (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2008 (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.