Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Away team

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.

Away team

The result was No Consensus (default Keep) Cheers. I'^mperator 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per previous PROD, use (described as "possible" allusion in cited source) by a handful of cultists seems insufficient evidence of notability to sustain article Alastairward (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plot summary with negligible references for non-notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. The use by the Heaven's Gate cult is described in reliable sources as being a definite allusion to the star trek term; the cult in fact had a prescribed TV watching list which star trek featured heavily on (Gwenllian-Jones & Pearson Cult television U. Minnesota Press 2004, pp 200-203). Direct sources for the star trek concept include Erdmann & Block Star Trek 101 ISBN 0743497236. I'm not totally convinced that this adds up to a keep, though. JulesH (talk) 08:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern about deleting this is that the away team is an important part of the format of the show. You simply can't have star trek without away teams: it would be a totally different show. Therefore, I think the concept needs to be described. Unfortunately, I can't find any references about it from a show-format standpoint. There are literally thousands of sources that mention away teams because it is such a core part of the show's idea. Therefore, finding ones that talk about them is hard, even under the assumption that they exist. And, as a core concept that is involved in almost every episode, I assume they must exist. I've tried to find a merge target, but I can't find a suitable one. JulesH (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you might explain a little more about this "core" part of the show and how it's necessary to know that we're seeing an Away team and not just people on a planet. Alastairward (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The Away Team is a notable part of popular culture. The term is used often, in various ways, and is well understood by everyone in the English speaking world. This term is truly deserving of an article. This article (although just a start) is an excellent example of the type of information that wikipedia can create and support, thus giving wikipedia true cultural value. Untick (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support rename and moving this article to (Away team (Star Trek) Untick (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "well understood by everyone in the English speaking world"? — ^{[citation needed]}! On the contrary, the well-understood name is the real name for the real subject, as noted below. Even sources that discuss Star Trek itself sometimes use it in place of the Trekkism. Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Star Trek encyclopaedia (ISBN 9780671536091) gives away team its own entry, on page 26. Part of the problem here is that, like its mis-use of ready room for the captain's sea cabin, Star Trek gets the terminology wrong. The real-world terminology, as observed by page 12 of ISBN 9780415929820, is a landing party. Several sources use the correct terminology, rather than the show's incorrect terminology. Look for that in association with Star Trek, and you'll find more sources. You'll find page 152 of ISBN 9780595400584, for example, connecting Captain Kirk's choices of landing party in "The Ultimate Computer" to micromanagement.
Of course, once one starts using the real name for the concept, all sorts of non-fiction content becomes apparent. There are a fair few sources on the subject of real naval landing parties. Page 52 of ISBN 9781855323346, for example, discusses the equipment, composition, and achievements of landing parties in the British Navy under Nelson in the Napoleonic Wars.
There's scope to counter the Trekkist bias towards fiction here into a proper article about factual subjects (which can of course mention the fictional counterparts) without deletion. It starts with simply renaming the article. Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Away team (Star Trek), and redirect this article title to Road (sports) or at least move Away team (disambiguation) to this title. The subject is notable as an important part of the Star Trek fictional universe, but not at this title. I'd rather see "Away team" without qualification refer to the sports concept, as I think that usage is more universal. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, maybe we could move it to each Series/Movie and add details as to specifics. MWOAP (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per KuyaBriBri. Away team (disambiguation) needs to be moved to Away team. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, can some sort of notability within the Star Trek universe be cited please? Alastairward (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that the concept is described in the books that I and Uncle G have provided references to shows notability within the Star Trek universe. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my undecided to keep on the basis of additional references found by Uncle G. JulesH (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A discussion of whether to move to Away team (Star Trek) or merge to a general article on landing parties should take place on the talk page but neither option requires deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2009 (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.