Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror Universe (Star Trek)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:52, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Mirror Universe (Star Trek)[edit]
Original reason: "This does not belong in an encyclopedia -- leave this stuff for the trekkie nerd reference books." added by an anonymous vandal that failed to do steps 2 & 3 of the VFD process and so I'm doing it now. Cburnett 06:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I move to strike this VFD. The poser is anonymous (24.211.174.208 also wrote Cleotus Scott Sipe which is under VFD) and I see little to not assume bad faith here. Cburnett 06:31, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, keep. In terms of Trek canon, it's definitely notable. Marblespire 08:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable. Megan1967 08:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Definitely Keep. Lokicarbis 12:17, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Notable within the canon, but I think by WP:FICT it should still be a
merge and redirect. Barno 16:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC) {'vote withdrawn 4-May regardless of whether I still think so'}[reply]- I'm not making a statement of agreement by asking this (actually, I 100% disagree) but: merge with what? The article in question is 25 KB in size.....only 7 KB from the recommended upper limit. Merging into any article will either require massive deleting of Mirror Universe or dominating an article's content (then by all means it should have its own article). One key point from WP:FICT is: do not delete meaningful content, which is precisely what you're really voting to do. Cburnett 16:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- The article is 25KB in size because it contains a lot of (apparently well-written) material that belongs in a Trek fan guide or concordance rather than WP. I was a Trek fan (though a little kid) when the original series was first-run, but we have different opinions about what is "meaningful content". About 2KB of that article belongs in a decently-fleshed-out wikipedia, in a section of a parent article, by the way I interpret WP:FICT. We don't have 25KB articles about many factual topics of real-world significance and global awareness; how much fictional detail do we really need in WP as compared to a Star Trek Wikiproject? Unfortunately all that fiction is explicated at length here and will never get voted out, even if a wikiproject duplicates it all. So I don't waste time listing List of Tribbles seen eating quadrotriticale on ST:TOS episode "The Trouble With Tribbles" on VfD, but I cast a merge vote, which loses, when I see such a listing. Barno 17:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- m:Wiki is not paper, space is dirt cheap so there's no reason to chop article A down because article B is smaller. Chopping A doesn't make B any larger. Additionally, WP:FICT is specifically about characters. WP has articles on individual episodes (and might I add that Jimbo thinks an episode should have its own page) and the Mirror Universe spans no fewer than 9 episodes. Comparatively speaking, Mirror Universe would be a major plot line not a minor one (otherwise all episode articles would be deleted). Cburnett 17:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I support Cburnett's view. I have major issues with WP:FICT, but I certainly feel that WP:FICT doesn't really apply here in any event.23skidoo 01:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know a bunch of fans who would insist that Star Trek isn't fiction, but I'm not that extreme. The fiction policy applies; we simply disagree which part of it is most relevant here. But I recognize the consensus is to keep this, so I won't tribble, er, quibble. Barno 02:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think either 23skidoo or I are contending that ST is non-fiction, but that's not the point. Comparitively speaking, the Mirror Universe is not a minor plot theme which makes WP:FICT (even if you turn a blind eye to "character") inapplicable insofar as a "merge" vote. Cburnett 03:58, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I concur with Cburnett. Clearly there was a misunderstanding of our comments on this matter. (Although I do agree there are some folks who take Star Trek a little too seriously! ;-) 23skidoo 04:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know a bunch of fans who would insist that Star Trek isn't fiction, but I'm not that extreme. The fiction policy applies; we simply disagree which part of it is most relevant here. But I recognize the consensus is to keep this, so I won't tribble, er, quibble. Barno 02:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I support Cburnett's view. I have major issues with WP:FICT, but I certainly feel that WP:FICT doesn't really apply here in any event.23skidoo 01:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- m:Wiki is not paper, space is dirt cheap so there's no reason to chop article A down because article B is smaller. Chopping A doesn't make B any larger. Additionally, WP:FICT is specifically about characters. WP has articles on individual episodes (and might I add that Jimbo thinks an episode should have its own page) and the Mirror Universe spans no fewer than 9 episodes. Comparatively speaking, Mirror Universe would be a major plot line not a minor one (otherwise all episode articles would be deleted). Cburnett 17:50, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- The article is 25KB in size because it contains a lot of (apparently well-written) material that belongs in a Trek fan guide or concordance rather than WP. I was a Trek fan (though a little kid) when the original series was first-run, but we have different opinions about what is "meaningful content". About 2KB of that article belongs in a decently-fleshed-out wikipedia, in a section of a parent article, by the way I interpret WP:FICT. We don't have 25KB articles about many factual topics of real-world significance and global awareness; how much fictional detail do we really need in WP as compared to a Star Trek Wikiproject? Unfortunately all that fiction is explicated at length here and will never get voted out, even if a wikiproject duplicates it all. So I don't waste time listing List of Tribbles seen eating quadrotriticale on ST:TOS episode "The Trouble With Tribbles" on VfD, but I cast a merge vote, which loses, when I see such a listing. Barno 17:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not making a statement of agreement by asking this (actually, I 100% disagree) but: merge with what? The article in question is 25 KB in size.....only 7 KB from the recommended upper limit. Merging into any article will either require massive deleting of Mirror Universe or dominating an article's content (then by all means it should have its own article). One key point from WP:FICT is: do not delete meaningful content, which is precisely what you're really voting to do. Cburnett 16:19, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. -- Lochaber 17:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is just as wikipedia-worthy as any other Star Trek related article. -- Old Right 17:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable R Calvete 19:43, 2005 May 3 (UTC)
- Keep Mirror Universe is a common sub-genre of Trek (amounting to 10 episodes now, including last week's ST:ENT, and at least six books.); if Trek belongs, this does. Comment made by 141.211.138.85
- Keep. Major concept within Star Trek, and still current, too. 23skidoo 01:29, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep :: concur with earlier reasons --Simon Cursitor 06:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are Trek articles for less notable concepts here, so keep this one. Ben Babcock 12:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From a post on Slashdot: "...Enraged Trekkie __________ attacked Orson Scott Card today and beat him senseless with a 1960s-vintage officially licensed Star Trek (tm) phaser. Other trekkies soon arrived in mass and quickly stoned the defenseless Card to death with their DVD box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise. Card had made the mistake of making comments in a Los Angles Times op-ed piece about the Star Trek franchise that did not deify all people ever involved in the series, including bit-part actors who barely had speaking parts. He even went so far as to suggest that perhaps Star Trek was not the best TV series of all time. "He made some good points in the article," said a fellow sci-fi writer who feared for his life and did not want to be identified. "Too bad he had to make them about Star Trek. I'll miss him." Barno 14:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- *laughs* Okay, but, so what? Marblespire
Strong Keep: This is a major popular culture reference in the United States. If we delete this how will the rest of the world understand Americans. Would they all be forced to read a book by Michael A. Bellesiles? :)
- Keep. This storyline is a very well known Star Trek storyline. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - important trek aspect and pop culture reference. -- taviso 10:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, very notable in Star Trek. — JIP | Talk 09:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Also, Anonymous users cannot nominate articles because a vandal could nominate thousands articles for deletion daily. — Ŭalabio 06:54, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Article about a well known concept of a well known series. Interestingly, in an unusual show of unity, consencus is near universal. What an apropriate hommage to Star Trek, albeit ironic given it's over the Mirror Univerese.- JCarriker 01:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.