Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems (third nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. I confess, however, that in the past I've read this article myself and enjoyed it, although this temporal cold war business serves as an object lesson to any writer who thinks time travel is a substitute for creativity. Memory Alpha has made it clear that they don't want it, as has Wikipedia. I suspect, however, that this article, or one very much like it, could have a long and fruitful history on someone's personal website or wiki. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems

edit

There is additional discussion of this AFD on the Talk page. Please visit it for more indepth discussion of various issues regarding this AFD.

This article is severe fancruft and full of opinion. While the fact that there were continuity problems with the series may be encyclopedic, the nature and discussion of those problems on wikipedia are not necessary. During the last AFD it was proposed that the article be moved to the Star Trek wiki [1]. It would be prudent to do so and simply mention in the original Enterprise article there were continuity issues and let people goto the Star Trek wiki and read about it if they so wish. This article contains a lot of original research, referencing many alleged fan opinions that would be impossible to source properly here. Not to mention the title of the article is "alleged" problems, which conveys a clear message that this article is opinion. Crossmr 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Star Trek wiki. That's what it's there for. RedRollerskate 18:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Transwiki if anyone can be bothered. — Haeleth Talk 18:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Usefull, and what the hell are you going on about star trek wiki? i assume you mean memory-alpha? Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 18:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it useful? I asked on the talk to provide any evidence this was encyclopedic and all you did was resort to insults. How do you justify the opinions expressed in the article? You also don't need to assume anything. I provided the link to the site in question that I recommended it be moved to. --Crossmr 18:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is now the third time this has been AfDed, and it survived both previous times. No convincing reason given to overturn those results. "Cruft" is always a weak reason for deletion, and an oft-misunderstood one at that. Isn't original research either, as it does cite sources. Slap a cleanup tag on it if there are problems, but I see no reason to overturn two previous AfDs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is original research when just about every paragraph contains sentences like "Some fans..." There is no citing for that. The last AFD wasn't a keep either, it was a no concensus. Cruft isn't weak when you consider that no one outside trek fans care about continuity issues in enterprise like vulcan eating habits, and even then not every fan cares about it. --Crossmr 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, not every fan cares about it. Just like not every Simpsons fan cares about the List of vehicles in The Simpsons. I guess we should be deleting this one too? Or any other page where not everyone interested in the topic cares about the specific information given? -- Ritchy 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated below, we're here to discuss this article. If you can't keep your comments to the article at hand you might want to withdraw from the discussion as arguing the validity of one article based on another adds nothing to the discussion. --Crossmr 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia:Original research. Wish I could hand this one to the Trekkies, but OR is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, and this article seems largely to be unverified OR. David L Rattigan 19:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Words like alleged and weasel words such as some fans make this problematic. The article reads as original research and does border on cruftiness. It would be better off cleaned up, substantiated - i.e. nothing alleged about it - and placed on Memory Alpha, where it would have a greater audience.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  19:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It reads like original research. Very few notes. In a real article of a topic like this, there would be dozens of specific citations. Ted 19:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Very few notes"? There are 49 different ST episodes referenced in there! How many more do you want? -- Ritchy 20:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As has been noted, this is the third time someone tried to have it deleted, and both previous times the VfD failed. This is starting to look less and less like a serious request, and more like a "Star Trek doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" campaign.
    The article is not original research. People keep saying that it is nothing but fan stuff, hoping perhaps that people won't read the article itself to check? Because, in reality, the article cites no less that 49 different Star Trek episodes and 3 books. This article has more sources than roughly half the articles on Wikipedia -- if this gets deleted for being unverifiable, then so should most of Wikipedia.
    The article belongs on Wikipedia. "Star Trek" deserves more than a single page saying "TV series aired from 1966 to 2005, see MemoryAlpha for more details", which is what it will be reduced to if some people had their way. But more than that, this page provides useful and relevant information on the last Star Trek series, and how it fits (or doesn't fit) into the huge and rich Star Trek universe. It is necessary to understand the public reaction to Enterprise, which led to the first cancellation of a Star Trek series since TOS in 1969. Not exactly an event that will go down in History, I'll grant that, but then again, Wikipedia is not Britannica. There are less relevant articles allowed to stay on Wikipedia -- one need only think of Ketchup on hot dogs or List of neologisms on The Simpsons, for example. -- Ritchy 20:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The hot dogs article is in the process of being merged. Neologisms from the Simpsons have had more cultural impact that fan discussions of Star Trek continuity errors . Bwithh 20:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment If its okay with you two (Ritchy and David) I'm going to move the discussion stemming from Ritchy's point to the talk page where specific examples can be discussed and I'll leave this comment and put a note at the top mentioning that additional information can be found on the talk page? Just to keep it a little cleaner and more maneagable for people to vote. I'm not sure if there is policy against that, but I don't want to have some unwieldy discussion going on why people are trying to express their delete or keep opinions.

Yep, please do. David L Rattigan 20:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you dont want people to read it so you can get what you want, hmm. Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I wanted that, I wouldn't be linking at the top and leaving this comment in place. --Crossmr 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He has just made two points, can you not read? Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew, can we dispense with the personal attacks already? David L Rattigan 20:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your talk page full of several mentions of WP:CIVIL. It seems you still haven't gotten around to reading it. The fact that this article isn't solid has already been address several times. If you have something to add to this discussion I welcome it. If you're just here to continue the behaviour you've displayed elsewhere I'm going to kindly ask you to leave. --Crossmr 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, this is something people want to read about though, no one wants to read about you toe (bad comparison), so your childishness is totally inappropriate on here, let's try to debate this like adults. Thankyoubaby 05:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am debating it like an adult. I was illustrating the point that hard work doesn't justify the keeping of an article if it has problems that make it inappropriate for wikipedia. If you'd like to debate like an adult, why don't you provide some adult reasons on why it should be kept? As its been pointed out by endless people it violates WP:OR and WP:V and no amount of "hard work" justifies keeping it with those problems --Crossmr 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transport send to Memory Alpha. Fancruft AND Original research. Not quite a hat trick, but bad enough. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant transwiki to Memory Alpha. The amount of weasel words and OR in this article is just too much for me. May consider keeping it if someone gets rid of the OR problems. BryanG(talk) 06:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately there is so much OR in there, I think it is going to be very hard for someone to get it up to Wikipedia standards, as it's going to have to include references to verifiable sources for every one of the claims. My best suggestion is that someone take it into their userspace where they can work on building up the references, and then repost the article when it is in shape. It is such a mammoth task, it would be unfair to leave it in the namespace while people try to build up some sources. David L Rattigan 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, no matter what. The subject and overdetailed writing into apparent continuity flubs in a television series is completely unsuitable for an encyclopedia. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 08:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Of interest to Star Trek fans and those who wonder why it was considered a 'controversial' Star Trek show. Magic Pickle 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
which is exactly what cruft addresses. Things that are of interest only to those within a small group aren't appropriate for wikipedia. --Crossmr 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A general reader who reads that the show was considered controversial in a canonical sense may be interested to know what the issues were. Without this article they will not know what those issues were.Magic Pickle 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is the only source of that information and you believe that, you should change your opinion to delete. That would imply this article is the sole ___location of this information and thus original research as defined by the policies of wikipedia. Thank you for making the case for us. --Crossmr 22:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This information is available at other sources. Magic Pickle 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then they would have access to this information without this article then? If the opinions and justifications and drawn conclusions are available in another credible form please source them. That is the crux of the problem with this article. --Crossmr 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your definition of credible source - for which Wikipedia has guidelines, but not policies. But on a more positive note, if the article is deleted does anyone have a web site where we can host it? Cheers. Magic Pickle 17:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 The guideline Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Reliability_of_online_sources points to this as the governing policy. Since none of these fans have likely had their opinions published by a credible 3rd party, they can't be used in the article to support the conclusions drawn as they are a tertiary source. As for keeping the material. I believe Ritchy mentioned he'd kept the material and you could contact him for a copy if you wish. David also mentioned you could take it to your user space (paste it in your userpage if you want with comment tags around it, or keep it in a subpage to work on if you like)--Crossmr 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Under Wikipedia guidelines the information in various licensed Trek reference works would count as a verifiable/credible source, yet as all good Trekkies know, they are not considered canon. Magic Pickle 18:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except the article isn't quoting licensed trek reference works. Its citing fan opinions, likely derived from posts on message boards. Its also drawing conclusions which aren't sourced at all.--Crossmr 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. well I could dig out my encyclopaedias and whatnot and reference the conflicts with Enterprise, using those sources, I suppose. Magic Pickle 19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the problem. No one will. They just leave it and it looks like unsourced OR and unsourced opinion. If there IS a credible publication that actually details this information it would be good. The alternative is to trim it down and if its more than a stub, rename it to something like "Star Trek: Conflicting Canon" and just list some of the encyclopedias that cover it as further reading. --Crossmr 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your reasoning? --Crossmr 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, I'm not sure on the normal wait time between listing and relisting, but as this is the 3rd AFD I'd like to reach an actual concensus which means giving those who don't read previous AFDs a chance to weigh in. --Crossmr 16:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I acknowledge and commend the hard work that went into this article, but, alas, the content is not suitable for an encyclopaedia, even though Wikipedia is not paper. The original research is nearly inextricable from any other content. Perhaps Memory Alpha can house this, but it's just not for Wikipedia. GassyGuy 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, quite blatantly original research and WP:NOT. The fact that it is reasonably well-written and is formatted properly, and has obviously had a lot of work put into it, does not change the fact that it is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. This won't stop mass voting by Trekkers stalemating it into a no consensus... as usual. (oops, no-one's supposed to admit that AFD is actually still a vote tally done by the closing admin are they? It is officially a 'discussion' now, isn't it). - Motor (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the sole basis that it has survived several previous AFD attempts. I no longer contribute to this article (which originated as a breakaway article to reduce the length of the main article), and I do feel it can be argued that it might no longer be needed. But the fact previous AFD's passed in favor of the article being kept means IMO enough people still feel it has a place, so I vote to keep. 23skidoo 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping it on the sole basis it survived previous AFDs? that makes absolutely no sense, especially when you consider it actually failed the last attempt 9 deletes to 7 keeps. It only passed on the generosity of an admin as far as I'm concerned.--Crossmr 17:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's an issue you have to take up with the admin in question. The record still shows it survived AFD. 23skidoo 18:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well done, but pure WP:OR. Beam up to Trekkie Wiki if so inclined. ~ trialsanderrors 17:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fancruft, send it Memory Alpha if they want it. It's original research, or at best unsourced, and contains a lot of statements like "theories put forward by fans", etc. But I don't buy this argument that putting two contradictory statements next to each other and stating that they contradict constitutes original research. Opabinia regalis 17:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's said that, Opabinia. Problem with the article is that it doesn't stop at putting statements next to each other and declaring them contradictory. The article goes on to propose harmonisations and interpretations of the data - that's OR. David L Rattigan 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, what I mean is that the expansion on fan-originated theories is the original research, not the list of contradictions in itself. That's just fancruft. Opabinia regalis 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure WP:OR fancruft, sorry. Sandstein 18:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and transwiki. As other commentors have noted, the WP:OR content and use of weasel words ("alleged", "some fans") can't easily be removed from this article. That said, I'm sure it'll find a happy home over on the Star Trek wiki. -- Docether 18:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's OR. It's as simple as that. The nature of the article invites OR. There have been cleanup tags present for over six months and they haven't helped. This doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and for what it's worth it doesn't belong on Memory Alpha either because they don't endorse OR. It belongs on fan forums. I tried to clean this up months ago when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, but even my edit left opinions in (partially my own). This article can't exist without them, and verification of lines such as "many fans suspect..." cannot occur without linking to biased forum discussions. Star Trek should be on Wikipedia. This shouldn't. - Hayter 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. I think this is an excellent article for Memory Alpha, and I'm glad people wrote it, because I've felt the same as the article's authors. But it violates Wikipedia's 'no original research' policy, despite the references. I also think it has a case to make, and thus leans towards one side of the issue (ENT being non-canon). — Mike • 20:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optional Transwiki. Five references for 35K of text? This is original research. If it has been through two prior AFDs and remains in this shabby state, there is no reason to believe that it will be cleaned up. Finally, this is about fiction, and at least in my opinion the only portion of the article that has any hope of being encyclopedic is the introduction, but without the body the intro isn't article worthy. We already have a summary at Star_Trek:_Enterprise#Continuity, that might be able to use one paragraph (tops) about specific continuity issues. GRBerry 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is pure cruft and OR. After two AFDs, it still hasn't been cleaned up, which seems to imply that it cannot, or at least will not, ever be cleaned up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR - BigDT 00:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwookie trekkie port to Memory Alpha, if they'll have it, and then delete. Too much original research. In order to be listed here, each point must be noted in a secondary reference. (tv.com and imdb.com might also be interested, if there's a way to preserve the GFDL in so moving.) Make it so! — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. —Ruud 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems quite a bit of effort went into this article. Frankchn 11:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, effort does not mean an article should stay that violates policies or guidelines--Crossmr 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not very encyclopedic, and draws so many conclusions that I'm ready to call this OR. Can be gladly transwikied too if you somehow figure out how to deal with the licensing (Last I checked Memory Alpha isn't GFDL), so it probably needs to be rewritten in that case. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tough call, but with cleanup the article can be salvaged. Some of the more egregious speculation needs to be trimmed, though. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, This is the last bump as this will be closed tommorrow. Remember to visit the talk page of this AFD for further discussion --Crossmr 03:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (transwiki if anyone cares to, natch): don't be fooled; though there are 5 references, they don't back up conclusions of discontinuity, just basic facts about the Star Trek universe. This is original research; it's a new analysis of published work (namely the show), unless the conclusions the article tries to reach can be backed up. Mangojuicetalk 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So I take it you haven't read the article? Because there are a lot more than 5 references. Counting all the episodes referenced in the text, there are over 50 references. -- Ritchy 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I like the article and I enjoy reading wikipedia for precisely this kind of information. - Richardcavell 05:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not you like the article is immaterial to the discussion. No one here is saying its not a good read. Its the fact that it contains original research and opinion that is the problem. That type of article isn't appropriate for wikipedia. I find it interesting that two admins have left comments that are entirely inappropriate to the discussion and process, one with no comment at all, and the other who justifies keeping an article with no real basis.--Crossmr 05:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
crossmr, do you have to leave a counter-point to every person who votes for keep? let them have their say. Thanks. Magic Pickle 01:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion not a vote. If someone raises a point, I'm free to discuss that point, especially when the point that is raised has nothing to do with the question at hand. --Crossmr 22:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NOR. --Coredesat 08:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optional Transwiki. --Ioannes Pragensis 08:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangojuice. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I too concur with Mangojuice.--Isotope23 13:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's original research. It doesn't matter if you reference a few basic Star Trek facts, the gross majority of it is OR, and removing the OR will leave us with nothing about continuity errors. Therefore the article is pointless. I don't care if you 'like reading the article' - many people like reading fiction, but that doesn't mean people should post short stories on Wikipedia, and I hope the closing admin takes into account the abjectness of many of the 'reasons' to keep ('it passed the last AFD'? Irrelevant. 'it's fun to read'? Irrelevant. 'effort had been put into the article?' Irrelevant.) If I were to close this, based on the strength of the above arguments, I would delete it into the ground based on both the conensus and the quality of the arguments, and that is, therefore, my vote. And do not transwiki - what right do we have to treat Memory Alpha as our dumping ground? Proto||type 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not even remotely perfect, its completely inappropriate for this encyclopedia, and whether or not you were looking for this information has no bearing on whether or not its kept. When an article is full of original research, opinion, improper sources and can't be verified, no matter how well its written or how interesting it is, there is no justification for keeping it. They've had a year to clean it up, and it didn't happen. There is no evidence anymore time is going to change that. --Crossmr 15:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"whether or not you were looking for this information has no bearing on whether or not its kept" That right people, the fact it's information people want to read about shouldn't influence the decision on whether or not it deserves an entry in Wikipedia! And am I the only one appreciating Crossmr's hypocrisy? He spends most of the VfD arguing that almost no one cares about this topic, and when people reply that they do care, it’s suddenly not a relevant argument anymore. -- Ritchy 16:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want to read short stories, it doesn't mean they have a place on wikipedia. The fact that it appeals to only a part of a fan community is again only part of the problem with the issue. You're also bordering on the line of personal attacks. If you can't keep it civil, I suggest you stay out of any further discussion--Crossmr 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The fact it appeals only to part of the fan community isn't a problem. Every single article can be said to appeal only to part of the community interested in the overall topic. Oh that's right, I forgot, we're not allowed to consider other articles here, or how your arguments are so broad and aimless that they would allow us to delete most of Wikipedia. And pointing out that your arguments are self-contradicting is a "personal attack", too. So basically, our options here are to agree with you, or "stay out of any further discussion". Well, that certainly sounds fair in a VfD. -- Ritchy 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every single article isn't based on fiction. But even if it wasn't fiction, the original research, opinion and unsourced conclusions wouldn't be permitted in the article. If you want to discuss the article you're free to do so, if you feel the need to discuss me you can stop. Doing that only continues to show the weakness of the article and the need to muddy the waters by trying to make the discussion about something its not. --Crossmr 16:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolute fancruft and original research as pointed out before. Prior AfD discussions can only guide deliberations and be use as an intepretive aid, they are not precedents. They need to be restricted to their facts because a) they are relevant to an article at a point in time (usually) and b) they are not determinations, but collections of opinions and hopefully consensus. Jammo (SM247) 20:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Important problem involving important show. Also too many renoms and extensions to this discussion. --JJay 22:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    it was renomed for a reason. To reach a proper concensus rather than have it muddled into the ground. Generating input by relisting doesn't invalidate an AFD. No one here questioned whether the problem wasn't important. The problem is how the article is written and the fact that its had a year to change and hasn't done so. --Crossmr 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one way of looking at it. Another explanation might be that no consensus = no consensus. If the subject is important, as you have claimed, but the problem is the writing, then the article should be edited. It should not be debated endlessly through excessive renominations...and debates should not be left open on AfD indefinitely. --JJay 22:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No..its the nature of AFDs. When opened, they're left open for 5 days, but the AFD is so busy people often do not go back 3 or 4 days to see what was nominated then. After the first day or two the only people who generally see the AFD are people going to the article who may have a biased opinion and not represent wikipedia as a whole. Renominating the AFD, especially on a controversial subject ensures that you get a more general concensues of what wikipedians feel on the issue rather than it being lopsided. Not relisting the AFD leads to situations where you have fan groups muddle the process and hurt wikipedia because they're able to just show up in a force of a few and muddle the discussion. If admins closed properly and actually considered the arguments on both sides like they were supposed to instead of just tallying it up like a vote (which they'll claim its not) this wouldn't be a problem for many controversial issues. If you read the talk page you'll see that the artcle can't be edited. Its been tried and the nature of this article is that its opinion. There is no cleaning it up. Once you take out all the unsourced opinion, conclusions, etc. you don't really have anything worth being an article. --Crossmr 23:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion and the informative lesson on AfD history and procedure. Incidentally, I see nothing particularly controversial about this article, nor do I think there is any potential to "hurt" wikipedia, whether it is kept or deleted. I don't think those type of scare tactics are necessary, nor do I think you score any points by attacking admins. The article has been here far longer than you have, and during that time wikimedia has gotten much stronger. I also think your logic is badly flawed concerning relisting, since if everyone relisted on a daily basis, following your lead, it would make a total mess of the process. You further claim you want participation in the discussion, but not from "fan groups" (whatever that means). People interested in a given topic, if that's what you mean by "fan groups", are responsible for contributing almost every article on the site. They should be allowed to speak. Their contribution shoulld not be belittled. In fact, you only want participation from people who agree with your opinion, and you feel entitled to argue with everyone who disagrees. Returning to the article, the talk page gave me no indication at all that this "can't be edited". If the topic is viable (and in this case "important"), the article can be edited. --JJay 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it is and has been for the last year consists mainly of original research and unsourced opinion. That hurts wikipedia, which is why there is a policy against it. My logic isn't flawed. If the article is listed once and forgotten about, on the first day you may get a general idea of what wikipedians feel. I never said I didn't want input from the fan groups, I said that if you leave the AFD that is all you get and it becomes lopsided. Relisting helps balance the AFD and ensure a proper concensus on a controversial issue. It doesn't allow a fan group to stack the discussion by posting to their project page or any other method they may use to keep inappropriate articles on the site. They're free to speak, but this IS a discussion. Any point they make I'm free to counter as that is how a discussion works. To this point as myself and others have poitned out, there hasn't been a single comment made to counter the claim of original research and unsourced opinion. The bulk of the responses have been "keep it because its been worked on hard" or "I like it". These are not valid reasons to ignore WP:OR. As to the talk page, not the talk page of the article, the talk page of this project page. I'm not the only one who has expressed the feeling that this article is beyond saving. There is lots of talk about cleaning it up when its nominated for AFD, but it hasn't been done. --Crossmr 03:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to repeat your views on the "controversial" nature of the article, or how fan groups are distorting the process, or "hurting" wikipedia. Essentially, it looks to me like you are trying to engage in some type of vote stacking deal by flagging an article you nominated on a daily basis on the AfD page. It is unfortunate that noms feel they have to seek new ways to game the system. Other than that, regarding this article, your opinion has been quite clear. I thank you for restating it. I would encourage you now to continue the "discussion" with some of the delete "voters".--JJay 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm free to continue the discussion with whoever I choose. If I have nothing to say about someone's opinion I won't and if I do, I will. When you are dealing with groups who can sometimes contain over zealous members, sometimes you have to be diligent to ensure a process is fair. For even mentioning that I felt the article wasn't encyclopedic I was attacked on the talk page. I'm also not gaming the system, I'm ensuring a balance to prevent gaming from the other side. I'm also not the only one who feels that fan groups will post in force to muddle debates. I might be gaming the system if I was out actively posting on people's talk pages and speaking with people outside wikipedia encouraging them to come here and vote against this article but I am not. I'm simply using the system laid out to ensure a proper concensus. Maybe you look down on that because with a proper concensus the article will be removed? If you think it has merit, I might suggest you go about editing the article to remove all of the original research, conclusions and unsourced opinion. However at that point the article would likely be too small to be an article on its own and would likely be required to be merged with the Enterprise article. --Crossmr 03:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, regarding over-zealousness, you have shown me that AfD noms and glazed-eyed Kirk lovers have much in common. I hope you live long and prosper on AfD. --JJay 03:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd question the "original research" point, since the inconsistencies ARE present within the sources. Wikipedia is not a conventional, paper encyclopedia, and has room to appeal to all. Ace of Risk 22:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inconsistencies are not the OR - it's the conclusions being drawn to explain the inconsistencies that are OR. It's fine to say, X happens and Y happens, but then to start proposing explanations is original analysis. The OR policy is quite clear that new synthesis or analysis is original research. David L Rattigan 22:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Star Trek continuity problems should have place on this encyclopedia. // Duccio (write me) 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
any particular reason? Wikipedia is no an indiscriminate collection of information. But thats not really the problem with the article. Its the original research and unsourced opinion. I'd be interested to see someone say they want it kept and to actually address the problem with the article --Crossmr 23:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is not the relevancy of the topic but the lack of sources, I'd like to point out that many ST episodes are cited, like others have already said in this page (see Ritchy's comment, point 8 from top) // Duccio (write me) 15:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the lack of citation on the actual continuity errors its all the conclusions, and unsourced opinions it presents to try and rationalize those. That is the original research and the problem with the article --Crossmr 15:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's edit the article removing them. But to do so, we have to keep it. // Duccio (write me) 09:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article can be edited while the AFD is ongoing. In fact its often encouraged. The article has had a year to clean up since the first AFD and hasn't done so. While its been written neater a little more professional, the bulk and purpose of the article is still OR. To remove all of the opinion, conclusions and unsourced information you would end up with likely a very short list. Have a look at the TOC. Thats essentially the length of information that would exist, which would be an unexpandable stub and should be merged with something anyway.--Crossmr 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There you have it. Even the trekkies don't see its value as encyclopedic value. --Crossmr 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggested it be merged with star trek cannon so I'm not sure how that is relevant. And has been pointed out several times, previous AFDs have no bearing on this one. The problem is original research and unsourced opinion which violate wikipedia policy. --Crossmr 16:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this is a sub-catergory of Star Trek Continuity, which is a valid topic. If there's suspected OR, it needs to be sourced or removed, but this is a legit topic, so delete isn't justified. Ace of Sevens 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is an article built from speculation and original research... the nature of the article guarantees it. It is not a legit topic for an encylopedia and should be deleted. - Motor (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Memory alpha has come in to let us know that they don't want it either. To me that should be a big heads up to the closing admin. --Crossmr 17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, after spending a week telling us that referencing other Wikipedia articles is not relevant in this VfD, you will not ask us to consider a completely different website, will you? Is there no depth of hypocrisy and doublespeak you will not sink to in your quest to delete pages from Wikipedia? And before you retort "personal attack!", it's not. Personal attack is what you've been doing to every person who voted "keep" on this page. What I'm doing is pointing out that your arguments are so weak that you can't even stand by them yourself. -- Ritchy 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments and those of the others who have argued for deletion have stood on their own. And not one single person has managed to address the issue of unsourced opinion and original research in the article. Countering a person's irrelevant argument isn't a personal attack. That is called discussion. There hasn't been a single good reason to ignore the WP:OR and WP:V issues in this article. What happened at memory alpha only illustrates that this article isn't the important piece of information to the Trek community that some claim it is. Even though its completely irrelevant to the discussion if the people insisting on keep feel the need to bring it up, then something equally irrelevant can be brought up to counter that point. In 5 days all we've gotten from the keep side is "Just because" and "I like its" and "I worked really hard on it". These points thrown against WP:OR and WP:V are as relevant as saying "We should keep this article because I'm wearing blue shorts today". So if you want to continue to put forth irrelevant points and pretend they have some meaning in this context, well I don't think you get to have a monopoly on that. You were given an opportunity on the talk page to continue the discussion on the points of OR and V, and when the picture was drawn very clearly for you, you stopped talking. So I commend you for at least making the effort to actually try and defend the article and the point you tried to make, but no one has come up with a good reason for keep in the face of that, nor have they gone ahead and improved the article by removing that content even though a couple have claimed its salvageable. --Crossmr 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This page has now been deleted from Memory Alpha. Their discussion can be seen here. -- MemoryAlpha:User:Jaz, Josh a z 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and sow with salt; we don't need OR, unverifiable TrekCruft. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks this article is going to go the way of the dodo. I would advise anyone who is seriously interested in cleaning it up (ie finding verifiable citations to all the original claims it makes) to save it to their userspace before it disappears. Whether someone does that and makes the necessary (drastic) changes will be the true test of whether those who have argued it should stay and merely be cleaned up are really serious about bringing it up to Wiki standards. David L Rattigan 17:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So is it OR or copyvio? If it's copyvio, then the article needs to be deleted/rebooted regardless, but I haven't seen the proof of such as claimed on Star Trek Wiki and (lately) here. If it's OR, then perhaps elements of it can be re-integrated into the Enterprise article. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyvio was only pertaining to the discussion on memory-alpha. He was just pointing out that they weren't interested in it even before it was discovered that it was a copy of the work from here, and considered a copyvio by them. The problem here is just the OR. If someone wanted to make a very basic and sourced list of the opposing items and include it as a section of the enterprise article (As it shouldn't be very long) that would be fine as long as it didn't turn into another bit of justifications and opinions, etc. --Crossmr 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is the way forward. So we would have: TOS Episode says A, notably Enterprise episode says B, without further comment. I do believe that this neutral approach can be more than a stub. As an example I will do a rewrite here of the Cloaking section:

Cloaking In the episode "Balance of Terror" (TOS) Spock states that such technology had been, until then, only a theoretical possibility: "Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain — selectively bending light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that. " Yet previous to this, the NX-01 encountered several races with cloaking technology, and even took possession of and used a cloaking pod from the Suliban. In the episode "Minefield" (ENT), the crew of the NX-01 encounters a Romulan ship with cloaking abilities as well as a cloaked Romulan mine field.

-Would we agree that there is no OR in the above passage? If so can we not do a similar job on the other sections? Thanks Magic Pickle 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

clean up the usage of "several" its ambiguous it could be 3 it could be 10. The quote doesn't add anything to the paragraph it just serves to lengthen it, its already been stated what Spock said and it what episode. I'm also not sure I like the "Yet previous to this" transition. It gives the wrong tone to me. I'll think about that. --Crossmr 19:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - How about this:

'In the episode "Balance of Terror" (TOS) Spock states that such technology had been, until then, only a theoretical possibility. Previous to this, the NX-01 encountered races with cloaking technology, and even took possession of and used a cloaking pod from the Suliban. In the episode "Minefield" (ENT), the crew of the NX-01 encounters a Romulan ship with cloaking abilities as well as a cloaked Romulan mine field. '

Any good? I'm happy to remove the quote from Spock - but I know you want it all referenced and that. Magic Pickle 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is better. You can quote how many races Enterprise encountered if you wish, thats factual. I think thought it was just the Romulans and the Suliban? --Crossmr 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the new-cut down version of Cloaking (above) to the article. I respectfully submit that it contains no OR, and that if the rest of the sections were rewritten in a similar way, they would be more than a stub. If no-one else volunteers I guess I could do it - but I would need a few days. Magic Pickle 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You probably do have that time. THere is currently a major backlog on the AFDs, and the relisting I did actually extends the AFD. It isn't scheduled to close for another 24 hours or so, but there is a 3 or 4 day backlog beyond that. We should also consider a new name for the article, because alleged is a loaded word, and like someone mentioned perhaps this could be made into a broader article to cite all Canon contradictions between all series. Continuity Contradictions is a neutral term, it could be spiced up a little if needed as long as the tone and meaning aren't changed. --Crossmr 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Here's another attempt which I will add to the article. If others want to revert they can.

Weapon technology According to "Balance of Terror" (TOS), the Earth-Romulan War which took place around the time of ENT was fought using atomic weapons. However, the NX-01 is armed with futuristic 'phase cannons' and 'photonic torpedoes', and the Romulan ships seen in ENT have a similar armament.

-No OR in that, I think... (I hope) Magic Pickle 20:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might take out "According to" it makes it sound authoritative or correct. When writing try to make it so that you could transpose the two contradictions in the paragraph without changing how one might interpret it. Using "In" there or some derivative of that would be more appropriate. Its also unneccessary to put attention on phase cannons or photonic torpedos like that. Perhaps refer to them as energy-based weapons, everything about the series is futuristic. Something like this:

Weapon Technology In "Balance of Terror" (TOS), reference is made to an Earth-Romulan War which took place around the time of ENT, it was reported to have been fought using atomic weapons. Through-out the series the NX-01 is armed with phase cannons and photonic torpedos both energy-based weapons. The romulan vessels are also similarly armed. --Crossmr 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete or Merge: Most of the subtopics in this article have their own entries (c.f. Borg and Ferengi). If you strip out the POV, unsourced hypotheses, and debatable conclustions, portions of this article could make sense as subsections of those more specific articles. Wikipedia shouldn't be defending away Star Trek's writers' mistakes (which parts of this article seem determined to do), but describing them seems legitimate, as long as it doesn't turn into crazy fan-nitpicking. Michael Bauser 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. If you think it tries to explain away the writers mistakes now, you should have seen it when Hayter was editing it. :-) Magic Pickle 18:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well. I guess it won't end up on Memory Alpha, but that might be a precedent that is wirth following. Eluchil404 21:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to stand on its own merits. You can't justify keeping it just because we some other equally pointless article.--Crossmr 00:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INCL for an explanation some of us have been working on with regard to this salient point. Jammo (SM247) 03:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to imitate crossmr for one second: could you explain your reasoning? Magic Pickle 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could have asked that same question in a much different manner. Make sure you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA--Crossmr 19:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not intended as a personal attack, crossmr, merely a homage. Magic Pickle 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you're on the other side of the debate, you'll forgive me if I don't view it as that. --Crossmr 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you. Magic Pickle 19:41, 20 June 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems_(third_nomination)&oldid=1307082082"