Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tales of the Seventh Fleet (second nomination)

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Seventh Fleet (second nomination)

(See also, first AFD)

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?) ⇓ 02:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is "fancruft" a valid reason for deletion? I don't remember seeing it in any of the wiki articles about the deletion process. Enquiring minds, and all that. JusticeCEO 23:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since none of these experts will answer your question Gene, I'll take a stab at it ..."It is true that things labeled fancruft are often deleted from Wikipedia. This is primarily due to the fact that things labeled as fancruft are often poorly written, unreferenced, unwikified, and non-neutral - all things that lead to deletion. Such articles may also fall foul of Wikipedia's policy against creating "indiscriminate collections of information". Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles.

Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion. Rather, the term fancruft is a shorthand for content which one or more editors consider unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." So Is this ...

poorly written?
unreferenced?
unwikified?
non-neutral?
violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research?
I think not--Kirok of L'Stok 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nobody voting to keep on the first AFD gave any evidence of notability and googling, I find no media mentions whatsoever and mostly self-generated hits. BigDT 03:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not encyclopedic, and notability should not be inherited from Star Trek. Erik the Rude 03:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't seem particularly notable either. JIP | Talk 08:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, NN fancruft compared to others. --Dhartung | Talk 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. -- GWO
Delete, not-notable. ~~Move it to Memory Alpha if it isn't already there.~~ - Motor (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is series is tied for having the 2nd most episodes out after Hidden Frontier. It is also the only one made by members of a Star Trek fan club, making it notable. JusticeCEO 11:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ... for very small values of "notable" -- GWO
  - Sorry, I probably should have said "Notable amoung fan films." My apologies. JusticeCEO 14:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, You said that about all the rest as well. What specifically about this article is wrong?--Kirok of L'Stok 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just as deserving as other fanfilms to be listed. Two films produced and third on the way. The Justice production team are the little ship that could. They have a dedicated following of fans, and their efforts should not simply be dismissed as fancruft. Nick Cook 13:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable GassyGuy 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Delete and merge" is an impossible vote. If the info is merged, the original article becomes a redirect. -- Kicking222 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Apologies, changed. SJennings 14:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fancruft. -- Kicking222 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfic is rarely suitable material for an article. Nothing distingusishes this project enough to make it worthy of an article.--Isotope23 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delte, fancruft. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In order to follow the WP:WEB guidelines, I have added various links to independant websites where TotSF is mentioned. I believe this fullfills Criteria #1. JusticeCEO 15:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, having gone through the list of links that you added, you seem to have overlooked the "non-trivial published works" bit of that requirement (and one of them is a 404 not found). - Motor (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Please define non-trivial for me. Certainly Trek Today, Memory Alpha and Trek United are not non-trivial websites. JusticeCEO 16:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, that's exactly what they are. Are you really suggesting that inclusion in Memory Alpha should qualify something for wikipedia? *Bashes head against desk repeatedly*. -- GWO
      - Comment - No, I'm just saying that I don't know what is meant by non-trivial. By my standards, those sources are anything but trivial where the Star Trek Universe (of which this article is part) is concerned, but I don't know what the wiki definition is. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. JusticeCEO 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is entirely notable within the universe of fan-created film series.

--NJHeathen 16:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:WEB is not the right standard, the article is about the product, and in that case films, books, music and porn are the yardsticks; this product's twin wouldn't pass any of those standards for keepness, and the article doesn't even make any claim of notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per Angus McLellan. Reyk _YO! 20:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bwithh 02:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others above Deleuze 14:15, 14 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.