Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unicomplex

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 was merge to Borg. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unicomplex

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations to reliable third-party sources; no assertion or evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a brief article about this could work; it's mentioned in several different trek books, and of course the DVDs themselves could be ref'd. Chzz ► 01:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is a important part of Star Trek Voyager. This article is linked by ten or so Star Trek articles. I know this article needs cleanup, that is why I put the cleanup tag on it. It should not be deleted just because it is poorly written. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books shows at least 7 relevant hits. No objection to merging this, to somewhere relevant, though. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Six of the seven supposedly "relevant" hits are in-universe primary sources that fail to substantiate notability; the seventh is a passing reference, also failing to establish notability. The subject does not have the significant third-party coverage required to justify independent coverage of the topic, and there's no evidence there's any material out there that could be used to offer an appropriate encyclopedic treatment of the topic anywhere. --EEMIV (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to borg. Nothing but primary and promotional sources on this subject. But could easily add this content to another article, which could be spun out once there was some independent source of notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Borg, it's not overly notable, and is an element of the Borg. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think what's being missed by the keep voters here is understanding of notability. Are the unicomplexes important to the Star Trek universe? Absolutely. Are they mentioned in many places in the Star Trek universe? Yes, no question. But that isn't the point. This project is not Memory Alpha. This is an encyclopedia, and as such we rely on reliable, independent sources to support the notability of a subject. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability. There are no references, and the only external links are to Memory Alpha pages. This article can't be notable because the universe in which the subject exists thinks its notable. If that were the case, then EVERYthing would be notable enough for inclusion. The keep votes here all rely on the notion that its notable because the fictional universe thinks its notable. The keep votes are invalid, and do not override notability considerations. Further, as WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy notes, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" We know that the fictional unicomplexes existing in the fictional universe is true. We can verify that it is true. That doesn't make this a valid encyclopedia article. Until recently, this had been a redirect for three years. If the keep voters want this kept, they'd better come up with some reliable secondary sources sustaining the notability of this subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Unicomplex is a major importance in the Star Trek universe. Just like USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) and USS Voyager and United Federation of Planets. If it were a minor part of the Star Trek universe, such as a romulan disruptor, then it should be merged into a larger article. This article can become a much larger article because of its important role in Star Trek. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is of such major importance, then there should be no problem identifying reliable secondary sources. If such sources do not exist, then there is no notability outside of the Star Trek universe. I don't dispute it's notable WITHIN the universe. It is, as you say, of major importance within the Star Trek universe. That's not the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And by the way, USS Voyager (Star Trek) suffers the same problems as this article; all references are primary sources. There's no secondary sources at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One relevant news search result and four book results when I search for "Unicomplex" and "Star Trek". It is a notable location, mentioned enough times in the series, both television and books. Wikipedia is not paper, no shortage of space. Dream Focus 08:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One relevant news search result? Ref please? Also, and again, notable to the series isn't enough. It doesn't matter if it is the most central object in the entire fictional universe. Whether it's mentioned in every single episode, every single book, it matters not. We must have secondary sources, not PRIMARY sources, to sustain notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that almost ALL articles on television shows have just primary sources. That is because television shows are not going to be talked about on other channels unless in a advertisement. Your not going to see CBS news talking about some show that is made and aired on Fox. This is because that would be helping their competition, that is why there are no television news sources. Newspapers tend to not publish articles about television shows unless they are very popular and have been on the air for 10 or so years. So that leaves books and internet sources. There are numerous online articles on unicomplex see here [1]. As well as several books, seven of them are on google books. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:FICTION#General_principles strongly disagrees with your assertion. There is no special case exemption for TV series in our notability policy that permits articles to exist only with primary sources. Also, the fact that things like Lost: Missing Pieces, 200 (Stargate SG-1), Abyssinia, Henry, The Beginning of the End (Lost), Cape Feare, Cartman Gets an Anal Probe, The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson, Confirmed Dead, Damien (South Park), all episodes that made it to featured article status shows your assertion is false. The fact is, much of the episodal articles on Wikipedia lack notability external to the universe they are in. Either come up with some reliable, secondary sources that support the notability of the Unicomplex or this article isn't notable and should be deleted. It's that simple. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is notable. There are no other subjects called "Unicomlex" that I am aware of. This article needs to be improved, not merged because it is written bad. After all, wikipedia is not paper. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's notable, you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable secondary sources. If you can't, then there's no out of universe notability, and this article needs to be merged. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article can be cleaned up to meet quality standards, and references can be found. At the very least, it should be merged. You may not be able to find many, if any secondary sources for every part of a franchise like Star Trek, which may only be present through news reports (which do not often focus on single television episodes or parts of the storyline,) advertisements, or informative sites for the franchise or online encyclopedias, which has been previously discussed. When a substantial amount of primary sources are available, it should be taken into consideration. I will try to improve the article. Wolfeye90 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then find those reliable secondary sources. You're right. You can't find reliable secondary sources for every part of a franchise like Star Trek. If you can't, then it doesn't belong here. If all you have is primary sources, then take it to Memory Alpha. This is a fundamental principle on this project (see second pillar of Wikipedia:Five pillars). Policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability demands we can verify this information. Doing so with primary sources is discouraged, and if an article fails to have secondary sources supporting it, it fails Wikipedia:Notability. Simply saying 'let's clean it up' isn't enough. For several days now this article has been on AfD and still not one secondary source has been provided. Marking it for clean up in the hope that someday it will eventually have secondary sources means providing an extremely low metric for inclusion. It's like saying "Hey, let's make an article. Maybe 20 years from now there will be a secondary source found on it. Don't delete it! We might find it!". Also see User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up. There are 57,000 articles tagged for cleanup, a 3.5 year backlog. If you can't find reliable secondary sources now, years after publishing of the primary source, it's highly unlikely you're going to find them. If you can't, take it to Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha doesn't require secondary sources. We do. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article should be merged into Borg. Even with secondary sources, the article would contain very little information. Your hostilities are not needed, Hammersoft. This is simply a discussion on possibilities.Wolfeye90 17:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my intention to be hostile. The nature of AfD is debate. I am debating. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's easy to find reliable secondary sources such as Cinefantastique. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft please see Wikipedia:There is no deadline. According to POLICY there is NO deadline for articles. Now that we know this article needs to be improved the article will be improved. Also if this article has to be deleted or merged 3/4 ths of the television articles also would have to be deleted or merged because they too don't have second party sources either. So this deletion discussion is snowed --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has existed for more than five years. When do you suppose reliable secondary sources will be found? Five, ten, twenty, fifty years? When is too long, too long? There's a repeated assertion on this AfD that secondary sources can be found. So find them. Waiting five more years isn't going to help. Voyager ended many years ago. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Borg. I have no trouble finding sources but the matter seems best dealt with as part of our main article on that race. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing references in Cinefantastique. Searching cinefantastiqueonline.com for "unicomplex" returns no hits [2]. Nor does searching all 173 issues of this fan magazine at moviemags.com [3]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources you would find would be in web archives. The unicomplex was mainly in Star Trek Voyager and in the late Star Trek the next Generation seasons so that would be between 1994-2004. The above websites are about current magazines. The unicomplex would not be in current news articles because Star Trek The Next Generation ender 15 years ago and Voyager ended 6 years ago. If you had searched back in 2004 there would have been many second party sources because the Unicomplex was the one of the main settings in the Voyager series finally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those sites are not comprehensive - moviemags just does magazine covers and patchy coverage of contents. It's quite useless for proving a negative. Google does enough in this case to demonstrate that deletion is not sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying Google does enough, but I'm not seeing it. If the references are out there, add them. I don't see them. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Magic word#Manners. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say please to get someone to add references? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search and added a few sources to the article. So now hammersoft cannot say that there are no results on google (because one you screen out unwanted words you get 1,220 results). --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the sources you added consist of a download for Armada 2, a fan site, a tertiary source encyclopedia, a primary source, startrek.com itself, and another startrek wiki other than Memory Alpha? These aren't reliable secondary sources. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. EEMIV rightfully stripped these 'sources', and the only one left is to the primary source. Still no secondary sources. None. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, those of you who think references will be found, and we should just tag it and move on; Species 8472 was tagged as needing reliable sources on January 6, 2008 [4]. Two and a half years later, still no references. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: couldn't find good enough sources. Merge the article to the borg, and let someone expand the section and split it out later if they can pull it off... Arskwad (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (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.