Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wreck: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:28, 6 June 2006

Star Wreck

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of non-self-generated hits ... and it has been mentioned in the national and international media[1] [2] [3] [4] ... according to WP:MEME, mention in a reliable source outside of internet culture makes it notable ... so by virtue of the CNN mention, I'd say this one is an unquestionable keep BigDT 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CNN mention makes this one open and shut. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is very unimportant stuff. Erik the Rude 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well good grief, so is most of Wikipedia. But the question is does it meet the notability guidelines for its genre and under the proposed guideline WP:MEME, it does. BigDT 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MEME is only a proposed guideline, and I suspect it'll be a cold day in Hell when it becomes widely accepted. Erik the Rude 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the fact is that whether you accept WP:MEME or not, I found four media mentions without half trying. This is unquestionably notable within the European Star Trek community and has gained media attention outside that community. To me, that makes it notable. BigDT 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You'd be surprised. After all, I thought the same about CSD A7. Either way, you shouldn't be complaining, it meets WP:WEB too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per BigDT. Tachyon01 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, they apparently are reasonably known movies and the page is fine with links. - Cribananda 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable fan movie series. JIP | Talk 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable where other series are not. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable to the extent that it has been mentioned several times in Finnish mainstream media and given Finnish mainstream cultural awards[5]. Thus, this is notable not only as scifi fandom stuff, but also notable as modern Finnish culture.Punainen Nörtti 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Popularity pushes it over the edge. Just. -- GWO
Weak keep, a fair amount of coverage... so it just about makes it. It also makes a useful bucket for stuff from the "Wreck"-cruft articles that need cleaning out. - Motor (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 *'''Weak keep''', a fair amount of coverage... so it just about makes it. It also makes a useful bucket for stuff from the "Wreck"-cruft articles that need cleaning out. - [[User:Motor|Motor]] ([[User talk:Motor|talk)]] 10:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Keep''' per above. --[[User:Badlydrawnjeff|badlydrawnjeff]] <small>[[User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff|talk]]</small> 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Keep'''. This isn't fanfic, it's a long running spinoff series with several notable contributors. 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)