Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:44, 14 August 2008

Rules of Acquisition

• Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition
• Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition (3rd nomination)

Rules of Acquisition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It has been seven months since this was last put at AFD, and there has been no assertion of any notability through reliable sources. This article is simply a repetition of plot trivia from various Star Trek episode articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It was closed as keep because the closer totally disregarded the requirement for reliable sources, and as you can see, it has none, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep due to overwhelming consensus in previous discussion and existence of the phrase in context used here in at least one published encyclopedia. What is good for a paper encyclopedia is good for a paperless one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Clearly the nominator believes the last AfD was at fault, and thus it is perfectly reasonable to open a new discussion. You can say "speedy keep" as much as you like, its not going to happen. -- Sabre (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason it shouldn't happen in this case as the topic is obviously encyclopedic and verifiable and thus the previous close was correct. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Attempting to re-hash this violates Rule 16: A deal is a deal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy Here's the thing.... Anyone who sees my username could acknowledge that it pains me whenever a Trek-related subject comes into AfD. I have an instinctual defense towards all things Trek. I've conversed online with Robert Hewitt Wolfe. BUT... according to WP:N, we need secondary source coverage. Currently the article apparently has one secondary source from outside the Trekverse. Now, that don't mean there isn't secondary source coverage of The Rules of Acquisition. But so far all the sources, save one, are primary sources. The degree of research and sourcing present in the article, though, convinces me it shouldn't be deleted out of hand. It is referenced, but perhaps not sufficiently to establish policy-level Notability. So I would advise being VERY careful of just killing this without allowing further possibility of source additions (userfying.) It's too ungainly as a merge, too much research and well written for a delete, and at present notability not established for a keep, IMVHO. LaughingVulcan 01:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; sourced, notable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• SPEEDY KEEP, passes WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. WP:RS and WP:N are not policies and cannot be used as valid deletion criteria. The nominator failed to delete last time and he brings no new discussion to the table so I find it hard to believe this nomination is nothing more "I didn't get my way so I'll try again." In fact, his rationale is "the admin screwed up" despite ignoring that WP:RS is a GUIDELINE not a POLICY so I don't see how User:The Transhumanist screwed up. No valid deletion criteria presented. Cburnett (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all the criteria except that pesky WP:V, which is completely ignored by this article and the Transhumanist. It should not be ignored this time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The content does seem verifiable, so let's all work together to use these sources to improve the article! Let's see what we can do and then take it from there, cool? :) --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand me, it would be awesome to keep this article around, if we could find something on how the writers came up with these rules, and what fans think of the rules, or if someone analyzed the Ferengi and their rules to draw parallels with culture or particular ethnic groups. But if none of that exists, or very little, which is what I suspect, then we shouldn't have an article repeating the rules from each of the episode articles, because that's what they are for. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Being a big trek fan I use wiki quite often and tonight I wanted to see the Rules of Acquisition, and I find it horrible that someone wants to delete it over some source guidelines...well here are the sources...WATCH THE SHOWS!!! Deep Space Nine quotes many of them and this article is a compilation of them and should stay!--Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Thats the kind of attitude thats going to get the page deleted. Tone down the enthusaism a little, for the articles sake. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per WP:V. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Uh. I don't know where the keep votes above are coming from. It is surely verifiable. I have no reason to doubt that. The article is scrupulously cited. What it fails is WP:PLOT and WP:N. Utterly. Every source is a work of fiction in the star trek universe. The notability guidelines are quite clear on this. We are not a star trek wiki. Memory alpha is. They can have all of these without dealing with our guidelines and policies on the subject. Until the notability guidelines are changed, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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