Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 26 July 2008

Star Wars vs. Star Trek

Star Wars vs. Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Vague, waffly fancruft essay consisting almost entirely of original research and synthesis. Vquex (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This again? Delete as nn Star-cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Article is unnecessary and should be merged into the Star Wars/Star Trek articles. – Jerry 22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as "Star-cruft"; non-notable and wholly in-universe. —Mizu onna sango15 23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination fails to consider whether the article can be improved rather than deleted per WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT. Notability seems well established by reference to reliable sources and there seem to be plenty more, e.g. some news hits, and so improvement seems quite feasible. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete The two separate subjects are notable but the rivalry between them isn't. Artene50 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Misplaced Pages is not for idle speculation about incomparable hypotheticals on the part of sci-fi fans, even if millions of us have engaged in this precise speculation :) RayAYang (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not an encyclopedia article, and not a reasonable subject for one. --Stormie (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Why would this need to be described here at all??Wikigonish (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This rivalry is covered significantly in reliable sources as shown in the references section of the article thus establishing notability. The references directly cover the rivalry between the franchises so it is not synthesis to have this article. If there is original research it can be removed by editing and does not require the whole article to be deleted. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge or delete "My favorite movie is better than yours" is not an encyclopedic stand-alone topic. If need be, this can be covered in one paragraph in the top-level articles, but not as a separate article. – sgeureka 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I have made some significant changes to the article, adding a couple of good sources. These changes invalidate most of the above comments by showing that there is significant critical commentary which compares the two works in a notable way. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm still not impressed. It's still all synthesis -- WP:SYN is the reason why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. Vquex (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• The sections I added are largely paraphrases of the sources cited. Please indicate an original conclusion to which you object. Or consider Brin's point about Star War's Nietschean message as contrasted with Star Trek's quite different position. How is this source misrepresented? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unsure I agree the rivalry is a notable concept and occurance and should have plenty of secondary sources (if Sci-Fi magazines are secondary sources in this case) but, feel the article needs a significant rewrite and probably a renaming (for easier search purposes). Whether is is "beyond saving" I'll leave up to the more experienced. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep but ONLY if rewritten from scratch. The topic is viable, and the fact it's recognized by Forbes confirms its notability (if all other sources were removed, Forbes alone would be enough). Problem is the article has become too much of an essay, though I disagree about it being cruft. This article could be rewritten easily by touching on the Forbes article and also citing things like the documentary (which I believe was called Star Trek vs Star Wars) that was aired on television a few years ago. The rivalry between these two fan groups is very well noted and has been a major part of the SF world since 1977, so an article is fine. But the current one needs major surgery. 23skidoo (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep as it is an incontrovertible fact that the subject has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, specifically articles devoted to the subject in Forbes and Salon.com, and the scholarly work of Russ (Joanna Russ (1978) 'SF and Technology as Mystification', Science Fiction Studies, 5, p. 254.) and the comprehensive response in Tullock et al. (Tulloch, John (1995). Science Fiction Audiences. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415061407.). The article has WP:PROBLEMS with WP:SYNTH, referencing and fancruft, but these are obviously irrelevant to the encyclopedic nature or lack thereof of the subject matter. Move to close per WP:SNOW. Skomorokh 16:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Skomorokh, that is an exceptionally poor use of WP:SNOW, which is itself highly controversial. I appreciate you have strong feelings that this should be kept, but in effect you are dismissing the opinions of many other editors; that comes across as hubristic and arrogant. Eusebeus (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Strong feelings about nerd arcana on the internet? You must be joking :) I am not dismissing the opinions of other editors; the last delete preference was voiced before multiple RS's proving notability were added, and not all editors are familiar with the distinction between the notability of a subject and the quality of an article. My move to snowclose was based on the (reasonable, I think) thought that no neutral editor in their right mind could conclude that the references explicitly provided fail to satisfy WP:N. Apologies if my tone came across as arrogant, English is not my first language. Regards, Skomorokh 17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This article has been nominated for deletion before. See Talk:Star Trek versus Star Wars#VfD, Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount), andMisplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination) and Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 3. --Phirazo 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If you think this is bad, you should have seen it the last time round. It seems any article on this topic will backslide into WP:OR. All that can really be reliably sourced is the existence of this rivalry, but not much else. --Phirazo 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I must confess to being mystified with this comment; "It seems any article on this topic will backslide into WP:OR" is not only speculative, but also completely irrelevant to the notability of the topic. Please clarify how the coverage of the subject cited above is trivial or why the sources are unreliable. Skomorokh 17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • There was an article on this before that was entirely WP:OR as well. After separate attempts this article still can't be written without editor's subjective opinions on this nerd argument. All that can really be said about this topic is that the rivalry exists. There may be some marginal notability, but there isn't enough here for an article.
• Keep per Misplaced Pages:Do not call things cruft, Misplaced Pages:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), and What Misplaced Pages is. Article could perhaps be expanded to cover other uses of the Star Wars versus Star Trek comparison, i.e. such as this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I didn't just say "cruft" -- I also said "original research" and "synthesis", thank you very much. Vquex (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Which is why I also said that it is unoroiginal research. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Aside from the malapropical idea of "unoriginal research", those links you provide to are mere essays and convey nothing more than incidental personal opinion, save for WP:5P, for which you provide an idiosyncratic interpretation that other editors should in no way feel bound to observe. Jus' sayin' Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Eusebeus, I thought you didn't want us replying to each other's posts in AfDs? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • But it is cruft. --Phirazo 04:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, it isn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
      • If this isn't "content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans", than I don't know what is. --Phirazo 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Italicized for emphasis: "small populartion of enthusiastic fans"? I would have to say the population of these franchises "fans" is actually quite substantial. And in event the topic is documentable as in , , , etc. If the concept of Star Wars vs. Star Trek is worthy enough of a whole section heading in a published book, plus the other sources, it is worthy of an article. Additional published comparison can be found in this book. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant keep The original research needs to be removed from this and I'm loath to anchor an article on a column from forbes that is clearly filler, but sourcing supports marginal notability and the coverage is significant. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article has several references, so it can't be entirely original research. What can't be sourced can be removed later. Topic is encyclopedic and needs coverage. I also noticed significant improvement in just two days after AfD nomination, so there certainly has potential for development here. Keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, topic is adequately covered by existing science fiction articles and this essay isn't sufficiently covered in itself by reliable third-party sources to warrant its own article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep lots of footnotes, why not spend time adding information to articles instead of deleting articles? Inclusionist (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient sourcing for an article of this length, and I know I've seen more during my lifetime on this in just Entertainment Weekly alone, let alone other sources. Underdeveloped article, and maybe not ever FA-grade, but notable. rootology (T) 15:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates