Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fusion (Enterprise)

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 no consensus. WjBscribe 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion (Enterprise)

A non-notable TV episode, has been tagged for excessive plot length for over 7 months. Article is just an indepth plot reprise with no real world notability. Pollytyred (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR and WP:EPISODES. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cancelling out one of the unqualified keep comments that will undoubtedly follow. User:Dorftrottel 15:27, February 2, 2008

Comment Dude, its consensus, not a vote. Plus your comments makes inclusionists seem like idiots. Zidel333 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ostensibly a discussion, but in fact it's a vote. And people who like to keep each and every shit just because it's Star Wars or Star Trek are idiots. User:Dorftrottel 23:38, February 2, 2008

Delete - Memory Alpha is a great place for in-depth Star Trek episode guides. Wikipedia is not. --Yvh11a (Talk • Contribs) 06:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an unremarkable episode of the series with no wide notability. WP:PLOT and all that. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Are you going to tag every episode for deletion? Every Trek episode has an entry. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not to mention the 200 or so Doctor Who articles, etc. Yup, depending how Arbcom rules I expect an orgy of AFDs. At which point I pretty much plan to resign as a contributor. 23skidoo (talk) 00:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough for an article of itself. A short synopsis should have been provided in a large article for the series' run, or some similar strategy. And the only argument for keeping I can see being used here is that other crap exists. SMC (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep A violation of Halt to activities. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Begrudged Speedy Keep per Col. Warden. JuJube (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep anyway. I've added a rating, sourced from the official site, and a note on its significance for plot development in a later season. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the plot synopsis is way too long, with its "Then what happened?" approach that crowds out discussion of the significance of the episode. I imagine that more sources can be found to show the reaction to the episode, which was one of the (many) ways that Berman and Braga departed from the premise of the original series and its successors. In this case, it broke the "All Vulcans are logical and emotionless" rule, which some fans thought was a good development, and others thought was heresy. Mandsford (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for the duration of the arbitration case as per the injunction at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision#Halt to activities. Davewild (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above-stated injunction. (aeropagitica) 02:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I'm in favor of keeping, an injunction doesn't mean an automatic keep, pending later renomination. It means that a decision on this should be made later. That being the case, I think that this is something that would need to be "relisted for further debate" (along with all these comments) once the injunction is lifted. To my knowledge, the halt to activities has only recently been communicated to other editors as part of the AfD process. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Aside from the arbcom injunction, Star Trek episodes are inherently notable and to pick and choose which Star Trek episodes to keep requires WP:NPOV violation. My speedy keep opinion stands regardless of Arbcom decision. 23skidoo (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.