Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Significant comments from multiple editors assert and have shown there is enough reliable secondary source coverage to retain, and improve, this article. -- Cirt (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)

[edit]
Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this episode has independent notability. I don't see any indication it was nominated for or received any awards, with no substantive review or commentary from third-party sources. Already appropriately covered at list of episodes --EEMIV (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy Keep - AFD is not cleanup. The article needs substantial cleanup. This is not a reason to delete. Taking the article to AFD because of the disagreement over whether or not it should be merged is improper. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Merging all Star Trek article into single page lists with definitions is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"AFD is not cleanup", sorry, but nobody suggested the article needed to be cleaned up. The article is lacking notability, plain and simple. A lot of these episodes are the same, no more notability in some of them other than a hairdressing award (no, really). WikiuserNI (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all episode articles - Indeed, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but it is an encyclopedia with a mechanism for determining which subjects require an entire article devoted t*o them. It appears that all of the first season episodes have their own articles at this point (and they have existed for quite awhile), so while they probably should all be merged back to the list of episodes and/or to the Season 1 article, it's unlikely that the status quo is going to overturned. None of these individual episodes appear to pass the notability threshold. The only coverage I can find about them (most of it is like this) proves that they exist, but not that they are notable. SnottyWong babble 23:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to list of episodes Pretty clearly fails to meet notability requirements on its own. Refs are trivial, limitted to things like reviews and no indication this episode has made a notable impact on its own. -- ۩ Mask 01:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to list of episodes, nothing but plot summary, no indication that the episode is notable or has any substantive coverage. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I wanted to alert closing admin to this discussion, Talk:List_of_Star_Trek:_Enterprise_episodes#Merger_proposal, where a discussion about merging episodes of this series was proposed by WikiuserNI, and the additional discussion there is relevant to this AfD.--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a combination article about the episodes, preserving sufficient content. Best compromise solution. So clearly the best that I cannot figure out why we keep arguing about articles like these.

Note: The article under discussion here has been listed in a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Trek#More_input_for_merger.----Milowent • talkblp-r 02:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and discuss merger possibilities outside the AfD process, since there's currently a merge discussion underway. Fact is, just about any episode of any major network, cable, or syndicated show has reviews out there sufficient to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 05:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This view has been routinely rejected in many, many AfDs. But you knew that. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following up to myself, I did manage to find one additional RS for the article, but it's not the primary focus. I don't see a merge consensus as inappropriate, as I've been unable to find more sources than those already present. Jclemens (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all the episode articles for this series Millions of people watch these episodes, that makes them notable, not the opinion of whatever random credit bothered to review them. Having the entire Wikipedia held hostage by the whims of a small number of reviewers, is ridiculous. Nothing gained by deleting it, since if you don't like this sort of article you won't find it unless you are just looking for something to complain about and destroy. Don't care what the suggested guidelines say. Wikipedia is not rules, and if a rule interferes with something that would improve Wikipedia, ignore it. WP:IAR Dream Focus 05:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite unhelpful, the coverage of the series this episode belongs to is already being improved, holding a list of episode summaries on separate articles merely reduces the effectiveness of Wikipedia, by making it harder to find information quickly. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment makes no sense whatsoever. If someone searched for the episode, they'd want to find the episode's article. If they wanted to find the series itself, they'd find it, and likewise to a season list. Dream Focus 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a lot of sense. By having a season page, we can keep the details on that season, season themes and the episode summaries together. If you search, you'll find that too. What's the point in hold separate, expanded plot summaries? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This user's comments are extremely unhelpful when it comes to these sorts of discussion, as they rest on "i like it, so keep" and flawed IAR rationales rather than actual editorial policy and guideline, it will count for little when this discussion closes. The Wikipedia will be improved by removing endless fan content. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc's comments are also extremely unhelpful when it comes to these sorts of discusions, as they rest on "i don't like it, so delete" and flawed rationales that the project actually improves by removing endless fan content, when more such content is created every day than could be deleted in a year. Its a volunteer project, and that's reality.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I only discussed aspects of notability and reliable sourcing. Yep, that surely just is an "idontlikeit" rationale for me "delete", eh? Facepalm Facepalm Quit while yer behind, Milowent. Your response was pathetic less-than-edifying. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always admire the wit of your uncivil comments.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could say that I admire your intentional misrepresentation of my argument, but I cannot. Tarc (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hope your extremely unhelpful comments count for little when this discussion closes. You can not improve Wikipedia by removing content some people actually come here to read. And all policies have been met, and the guidelines only suggestions. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a great policy to follow. We're here to maintain Wikipedia, not eliminate it. Episode articles like this have been around since the beginning of Wikipedia, and hopefully will remain. Dream Focus 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR can't be invoked so you can simply get your Rescue Squadron-preferred ideology to carry the day at an AfD, sorry. If the subject matter is notable, prove it. If not, then it it is eligible for deletion. For fan repositories, we can point users to the memory alpha, not an encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is determined by consensus, which is the opinions of those around at the time to comment, as well as the opinions of the closing administrator. All required policies have been met. To prove its notable, I'd point out that millions of people watched it, that all the proof I'd need. If millions of people thought it notable enough to watch, it should be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about it. Dream Focus 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahh, the old "notability is determined by consensus" vs. "XfD is not a vote" debate, eh? On some days you do win that debate...I've seen more that one 10keep-1delete discussion close as a keep despite the 10 arguments being slack-jawed absurdities. But when the numbers are closer, as this one is, then not-a-vote tends to rule the day, as there is more leeway to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments rather than be forced into bean-counting. As to the "millions of people watch it" argument, do you have even the slightest idea how ridiculous that is? Millions of people watched Wii Fit Girl on youtube, yet she only gets a redirect. Millions of people know who Brian Peppers is, yet he remains a redlink. Sheep don't vote, as they say. Tarc (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • can you please discuss only the afd, and try not to discuss the voters, or whether they are sheep, and try not to state which way the afd is going to go presumptively? it would help everyone. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On YouTube, can you trust the count? Some people can run bots that automatically change their IP addresses, and keep reloading the page, constantly, to get the number of views up. So you couldn't go by that. Dream Focus 19:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the card you're going to play then one could point out that Nielsen ratings are similarly deceptive, in that it isn't a literal headcount of every household in the country, but merely a statistical sampling. But either way, the "millions" argument falls flat per WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Tarc (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I had created a season page for these articles after having proposed a merge for them originally. I did of course check for a clean up when doing so, there is precious little. Notability seems far from assured, the article exists pretty much as a plot summary and an extended one at that. Delete as the season page already holds as much information in a more concise manner. WikiuserNI (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no notability to be found for a routine episode. I can justify episode articles for pilots, finales, and others that can be demonstrated to be notable beyond fanboy sites (e.g. "there are four lights!, but this fails that. There's no need to keep this as a redirect, as there's nothing to retain from an article of simple plot summary (Act I, Act II? Jesus, this isn't Shakespeare). Just update the redirect at Fight or Flight to point to the episode list, if that is permissible per disambig guidelines. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that's not a bad faith assumption (regarding the reason for AfD), perhaps you might address the article itself instead? What precedent do you refer to? I see plenty of unnotable episode articles being merged due to a lack of notability, I feel this one can be easily deleted. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A non-admin keep and a plea to have as many episode articles as possible aren't great reasons to keep. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is deletion not viable? WikiuserNI (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's indisputable that it's either notable on its own, or notable as part of a larger article or list. It's either one or the other. If it's the second it gets turned into a redirect and deletion would be both unnecessary and undesirable. (i.e. attribution of any material that ends up merged.)--Cube lurker (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, um, I kinda dispute it. a) There's already a one-liner description in the episode list, so there is nothing to attribute or reuse from the current article. b) We don't need to retain "Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)" for redirect/search purposes; a reader searching via title will hit the disambig page for the term, and from there can be pointed to the episode guide. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, you certainly have the right to dispute it. I guess if we want to be clearly technical it should read "In my opinion there's no valid dispute that..."--Cube lurker (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I take that back. You're not disputing the fact that I called indisputable. Your own words There's already a one-liner description in the episode list coincide with mine notable as part of a larger article or list. You're disputing the second part deletion would be both unnecessary and undesirable which although I feel is 100% accurate was not part of the indisputable statement.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer in line with my original answer. This is an editorial decision. Keeping the history beneath a redirect would allow editors to discuss and merge based on consensus, maintaining attribution.
A question in return, what is the downside in a merge/redirect even if after discussion it does turn out that no content ends up transfered?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, I am not outright opposed to the current page being retained as a redirect, just IMO it is not necessary, in that nothing needs to be taken from it to add to the episode guide. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any notable information which can be sourced can be merged. SnottyWong prattle 18:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you define "notable" in this context? Hobit (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case you wouldnt need to define "notable" any more strictly than "from a reliable source" because all of the sourced content in the current article could easily be transferred into a season summary article. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coronel, on the citations that the article has after your editions. Discarding the fan guides, I see a) an article about how fans see the new series [2] and b) a book about "extensive biographical and career information on more than 11,000 professionals currently working in the entertainment industry (...)"[3]. The fan guides seem to contain only plot summaries. I doubt that these sources can be used to expand the article. Your argument is correct but it only works if there are good sources to work with. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are quite satisfactory. Respectable encyclopedia such as Britannica and works of literary analysis routinely provide plot summaries which are expected content. There is absolutely no reason to dismiss these as sources. If other independent authors consider this material to be the significant aspect of this topic then we must respect their judgement. To do otherwise would be contrary to core policy and other policies besides. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For fuck's sake, please stop throwing wiki-acronyms in people's faces that do not have the slightest connection (censor? really?) to what we're talking about. Those who wish to see the project not be a host for non-notable fancruft are not censoring other users. Your premise...hell, the entire ARS premise...is bordering on the completely farcical. To even begin to consider it would effectively negate the entire XfD structure. 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
To all those who bet it would take more than 12 hours before Tarc started slandering the Article Rescue Squadron, you may now pay up.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
/shrug Well, it's kinda like the Wikipedia version of the Tea Party at this point; nothing can be thrown at it/you is not deflected by a novel re-interpretation or an over-simplification of editorial policies/guidelines. "We have to keep it because millions like it", "we have to keep it to preserve the hard work of other editors", "no, we have to keep it because I found mention of it in a google book search". I mean, Jesus H. Christ on a pogo stick, how does one defend the simple concept of notability in the face of such blatant wiki-fundamentalism? This is like Crossfire now, without the bow-ties. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's double, blokes.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you blame him? The ARS is not difficult to "slander". SnottyWong spill the beans 20:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about instead of joining in on the attacks we encourage people to either stay on the appropriate topic or keep our shots to ourselves.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snotty can't stand being left out of any drama that does not involve actually improving wikipedia.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
did something weird happen here [4] Aisha9152 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove a snarky comment of mine rather than strike, since no one had replied to it anyways, thankfully. Would you prefer it to return? Tarc (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it just seems sneaky since you left it up long enough for me to read it and it did not seem to warrant a response. i dont care. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no trouble with a standardly published fan guide per se being used to indicate "significant coverage by third party sources". However a fanguide that is merely listing the episodes existance or castlist is not "significant coverage". There would need to be actual coverage / analysis about the episode.Active Banana (bananaphone 19:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about these [5], [6], they come up in Google news results, but I wasn't sure.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is [7] "By Lisa" whose bio page is dead - so no on that one. And the FAQ for the second one [8] states that it is a "news and rumors entertainment site". Not generally the qualifications one would like to see for a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". Active Banana (bananaphone 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add them to the article, but put them on the talk page for discussion, because I wasn't sure about them. Google has some threshold for listing sites under news searches, but I don't know how that works.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roux, my Trekkie credentials are downgraded unless I'm involved in at least one such online debate about Star Trek a year... WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm willing to give any Star Trek episode the benefit of the doubt as they've all been pretty extensively covered in published sources. I'm sure both the Star Trek Magazine and Starlog covered this episode, and as far as book sources go we have Star Trek 101 (ISBN 0743497236) and probably others. I want to make it extremely clear that while I am voting to Keep here I am not endorsing Warden's speedy-keep close and if that happens again then a block is in order. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those specific sources you mention have already been presented. Some people (like me) don't find them to be enough. Is there any new source apart from those? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you show where they've been presented? I'm not finding them in this discussion. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)#References I guess.  pablo 19:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't seem to list any of the magazines in question. I think Enric's comment is mistaken, but if there is such a discussion I'd like to see it. Hobit (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to list of episodes, television episodes usually aren't notable in their own right. Secret account 22:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Any source which covers everything can't create notability. It doesn't show any special focus on the subject in question. So books which create an exhaustive list of things and mention the subject are out. Magazines that review every star trek episode ever, including this, are out. So far nothing else has really been shown for coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crossmr, a while back I took the same position as the one you have here and also started a thread about it on one of the policy/guideline pages. Unfortunately, I can't find the thread at present but I recall that the idea did not gain traction. Aisha9152, the thinking is if someone creates a reference work on Star Trek that they would have a section, possibly as little as a paragraph, but still a section, about every single episode. The reference work would qualify as detailed coverage of the entire series but should its coverage of a particular episode be evidence that the episode received "independent coverage?" Two of the Fight or Flight article's references, Star Trek 101 and El universo de Star Trek appear to be reference works that cover all the episodes. Those two happen to be the only WP:RS in the reference list that cover this episode in detail. Is every single ST episode "notable" as they were covered in these books? I thought "no" but attempts to sell the idea did not gain traction and so I decided to go with what the consensus was which was that inclusion in a reference work could be used as evidence of notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage should be significant and not just consist of confirmation that the episode exists and has a plot. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but also see that WP:N defines "significant" as somewhere over one sentence and 360 pages. For a while I was using "600 words" which is two paperback pages and nearly always exceeded by magazine articles as a personal metric but kept running into uphill battles when I used that metric in AFD discussions. In this case, we are talking about plot summaries which provide sufficient detail that someone can write a Wikipedia article about the plot. Those likely qualify as "significant." --Marc Kupper|talk 16:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - in support of all the pro merge comments on this AfD, in particlualr any that suggest it could be reinstated as a stand-alone article if develops sufficiently in volume and notability according to policy. Note: Incivility and pure hard-nosed deletionism is probably not likely to influence the closing admin's decision.--Kudpung (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, Keep or merge - They're are plenty of souces on all aspects of ST, but it's hard to make a GA (or hundreds of GAs in this case), so put it off till tomorrow. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been much discussion by those in favour of keeping standalone episode articles, but next to no work done on improving them, save for some desperate citation of the most basic of details (here's a quick hint for those editors, the episode and its credits take care of the plot and crew/cast citations). WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They most certainly have not. All that has been done is that the existence of the episode (not in doubt), its plot and the credits for the actors and writers have been cited. A mild review has been added. How does that count as significant coverage? WikiuserNI (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant," or rather "non-trivial," is defined in WP:N. What I saw was that there is non-trivial coverage of the Fight or Flight episode by multiple sources that are each independent of the subject. They appear to be reliable sources and are verifiable. Though it's not a WP:N point, further evidence of notability is that Star Trek has a considerable fan base that's independent of the subject.
I believe the main point contention is if non-trivial coverage in a comprehensive work qualifies as treatment of a subject in a way that makes it notable. There are books that attempt to cover everything known about the Star Trek series. I assume you can get DVD sets of all the episodes. This TV episode in itself would not is be notable other than it has gotten coverage due to the fact that it's part of a series that receive significant coverage. Both WP:N and WP:NOTFILM are silent on this. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or redirect per Kudpung. The episode still doesn't make any claims why it should continue to exist outside of a LoE/season article, and I prefer an AfD with balanced views to a stalled merge proposal that won't go anywhere for over a year. Of course the article can be recreated anytime it can prove the episode's notability with sufficient non-trivial sources. – sgeureka t•c 07:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've cut down the plot to a much more acceptable level. I don't really have an opinion on seperate articles more than WP:ILIKEIT, but there's no rush to improve the article, it will take time as there are a lot ST articles to bring up to spec, and a lot of published sources on ST to do it with. -- WORMMЯOW  12:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing, if we accept that we should ignore all rules, allow for as many articles as possible as this isn't a paper encyclopedia and take our time, why delete anything at all? You'd think though, that online, on a Star Trek article, there would be swathes of fans like me adding everything we can. Given that in all this time, we've only got an article that seems to mimic (poorly) a Memory Alpha entry, it says much about the article. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand Memory Alpha is not part of Wikipedia. Just because Memory Alpha has a entry doesn't mean we get to delete Wikipedia's entry and redirect to Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha writes articles in a in-universe style, it is very inappropriate to redirect to that site. Which is what we are doing by using a list with a notice that says "for more information please visit Memory Alpha". We don't keep as many articles as possible, many topics do fail notability. Star Trek episodes are notable, they are watched by millions of people. There are thousands of reviews. The statement episodes only receive notability if a few famous people review it is false. A search with Google of "Star Trek episode reviews -wikipedia -youtube" you get over 3 million results, many of which are relevant. Many of the reviews could not be considered reliable, but the sheer number of reviews prove notability. There was a similar debate on Microsoft Office 98 Macintosh Edition over "every software release is not notable". It was kept because of the sheer number of reviews and per WP:SS. Episode information is too large to be included in a single list, per WP:SS it should have it's own article. --Alpha Quadrant talk 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we don't want episode information to this extent. If all that can be said about this episode is a summary of the plot, then there is really no call for it to be a standalone article. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the TV Guide. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Star Trek episodes are notable, they are watched by millions of people." The episodes are watched by millions of people = True. That something is watched by millions of people = it meets wikipedia's notability requirement for a stand alone article = False. False falsefalsefalsefalsefalse. No matter how many times inclusionists attempt to state it as fact, it is not. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This episode is a stub. It needs substantial improvement. It is currently no where near the quality of Star Trek: First Contact. However, this episode does have significant coverage. AFD is not cleanup, which is what it is currently being used as. If we were to add sources, expanded the production section, and the reception there would likely be very few delete votes. --Alpha Quadrant talk 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I am not a inclusionist. I am a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists. --Alpha Quadrant talk 19:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said the same thing in the very first comment in this AfD re: clean-up, but that is not being suggested as a reason to delete or merge, so please stop belaboring that point. From what I can see, such sources don't exist, and it seems like you are trying to squeeze blood from a stone in trying to make it so. As I said above, pilot episodes, series finales, and the occasional demonstrably notable episode should get articles. The standard I want to see is The Puerto Rican Day, where actual, verifiable reliable sources discussed the episode. This ain't that. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Starblind. He's right, sources exist. It would be most helpful if people hunted down those sources which likely only exist in paper form. But they certainly exist for all ST episodes. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes it certainly would help if people who repeatedly make claims that "yes its notable" and "sources exist" would actually place these claimed sources into articles rather than just making a claim that they do in AfD after AfD. This would give some credibility to their AfD statements. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • just want to understand here are you accusing people who want to keep the article and say that there are sources of lying about it for some other motive? that seems pretty weird.Aisha9152 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, that would be a very weird thing to do. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not lying, IMHO, just lazy. We don't keep articles with vague hand-waves of "oh, there's sources out there somewhere". Tarc (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • who is "we"? Aisha9152 (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Really? The project. We're a collaboration, many of us. That means plural pronouns. -- ۩ Mask 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Tarc can speak on my, and the project's behalf? Aisha9152 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Tarc can speak to consensus, and he's described it pretty well. AfD is not a vote, and not every opinion is valid. Strength of argument factors in quite heavily, and what you're asserting now is actually specifically called out in the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- ۩ Mask 22:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • im not asserting anything im asking why tarc gets to use the royal we and imply that others are not part of the 'we'. he is implying everyone who disagrees with him is not part of 'we' right so anyone who disagrees is not on wikipedia? consensus here hasnt been reached yet right? so i think he shouldnt presume to use 'we' like that, its offensive to anyone who disagrees and sets people up to feel like outsiders. Aisha9152 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The royal we" as in those who have an interest in holding articles to established policies and guidelines, as opposed to "you" (the general, not the specific) who want to keep everything ever written by anyone at anytime because "you" like it, and treat the project like a fan blog. Tarc (talk) 23:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • thank you tarc. see mask, tarc gave a different answer from you. thats why i asked. i dont agree with how he summed it up but its still obviously a different answer since he doesnt claim to speak for the project as a whole. tarc maybe you should make it clear who you mean when you say 'we' next time. Aisha9152 (talk) 23:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Sorry to interrupt your little "HAHA SO THERE" moment here, but I agree with what AKMask said as well. Opinions that can be cited to and supported by policy and guidelines ("we") are better than "keep, millions of ppl watch it!!!" ("you") appeals to emotion and other argumnents to avoid. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • If someone asserts that there are sufficient sources to keep the article, "Which sources are you referring to?" is an entirely valid question. That's not even an accusation of lying, per se—I may want to examine those sources to see if I agree that they're reliable and acceptable, and evaluate their possible use in the article. Just saying "Sources exist somewhere" is unhelpful—which sources? Where? How would you know, if you didn't actually go find them? And surely if you did so, you can point us to them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • that isnt what were discussing here. i just wanted to know if tarc thinks he can talk for wikipedia as 'we' while other people cant. that isnt what he meant according to him but its what it sounded like. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, I have yet to see anything but trivial sources, which are explicitly mentioned in policy as not meeting requirements. The only show such a thing exists. Sources must show it's notable. Has this episode impacted a place or group enough to gain coverage? Has this episode in particular had an impact on culture, or is it simply another episode of a notable series? Because that's the notability standard articles must pass, not just 'someone wrote a review and a fanguide tells me what happened in the episode' -- ۩ Mask 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call the current references "trivial". They are specifically written about in these sources. You can't keep denying the validity of each source that is found. In two days seven sources have been found, I hardly call that trivial mentions. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you wouldnt. We have 4 sources that are only used to verify character appearances and plot points, and one that identifies the episode "one of the 4 best" episodes of the season. It would be hard to be more trivial. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are the very definition of trivial! Not one of them discusses impact, importance. To a T, all they do is confirm they exist. 'Show X aired last night, showcasing downtown Boston and bringing some entertainment to locals who gathered throughout the city around televisions to see how familiar sights look like on the silver screen' Would be a news report, asserting an impact (and hence notability) for whatever episode of Show X aired. A review, saying what happens in the episode, giving a cast list, and vague comparisons to other episodes of the same show does nothing but assert it exists. The notability standard is multiple non-trivial works. -- ۩ Mask 22:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point, to those above, is that we know there are paper sources that cover all the episodes. Thus the topic is notable, thus keeping is a valid option as the GNG is met. Merging is still, of course, an option, but one best addressed in discussion outside of AfD as notability is there... Hobit (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt, when i click on your links they show books in which the words "star trek" and "fight-or-flight" are randomly juxtaposed. For instance, in the first, some fictional character in a star trek book has her "fight-or-flight" reaction inspired by a giant spider. In another, a vulcan recalls that his mother taught him that the "fight-or-flight mechanism" is common to all species. Asserting that these things "discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary" and that therefore this article should be retained is, well, frankly absurd. The kindest explanation for what you just did is rank incompetence -- since that at least assumes you looked at the results of your little google book search but misunderstood it. The other option is that you didn't even read what you found, but just chose to willfully misrepresent it here for convenience. Shameful.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume a little good faith, shall we now? Didn't he just insert typical type links that are inserted at the top of any AfD to guide searches? I see how it could be read the way you read it, I guess, but I just read it as offering the links where one commences searching to find more links.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You read it correctly, thank you... and in his personal POV, Bali did not. When he commences personal attacks and makes blatant and unhelpful assumptions of bad faith, I find it best to ignore him. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plain sense of your declaritive statement that When sources are found[13][14] that discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary about that episode isn't really debatable. That statement was a patent falsehood. Had you written sources might be found at the random searches provided, but i haven't read the results so i don't really know what's there would have been accurate. As it is, i checked the sources for you. There's nothing there. Misreprenstations of this nature are corrosive, and pointing them out isn't an attack. It's neccessary to help people evaluate your crediblity. People that deserve "good faith" don't misrepresent stuff.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is patent and blatent assumptions of bad faith that are corrosive. Shameful. That the book search result offered was not fruitful is fine (not that you offered any in your personal quest to delete) and an actual polite response might simply have been "your book search was not fruitful"... but to continue attcking that general book search pointedly fails to address the improvements made to the article since nomination and the news sourses available that deal directly and in detail to this second episode of a (then) new series where various reviewers offered critical commentary of the episode itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you don't want to be called on falsehoods then avoid them. As for the news sourses available that deal directly and in detail to this second episode of a (then) new series where various reviewers offered critical commentary of the episode itself well, I challenge you to name one. I can't find any and certainly there are none currently in the article -- none findable in generalized google searches either. Where are these sources? Have a link to even one?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And if you do not want to be called on your bad faith accusations and personal attacks, don't make them. Is civility and polite discourse really that difficult for you? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a single source to offer? It appears that you don't, since you haven't furnished one yet. Again, when it's an actual falsehood that you've been caught in, pointing it out isn't a personal attack or bad faith; it's part of the process of evaluating your statements. Fact 1. You claimed to have found sources that dealt with this episode in detail and that offer critical commentary. Fact 2. You found no such sources, though i had to take the time to go hunting through your randomized google search to prove it. Squirm all you want, but facts are stubborn things.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My original comment was "Keep per improvements made since nominaton and allow continued work. When sources are found that discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary about that episode, we find then that we have guideline encouraged reasons to expand and further source an article... and no longer any guideline or policy sanctioned reasons to delete", after which I offered search results for research. My civil opinion is supported by guideline and policy... and when offering a search results for consideration and research, I never said I had the sources on a platter for you. Continued bad faith assumptions are yours as exemplified by your words.
A response that could have begun civilliy with "Excuse me, but..." instead resorts to blatant violation of behavioral policy in response... choosing to respond with uncivil comments using less than courteous descriptives such as "frankly absurd", "rank incompetence", "willful misrepresent", "corrosive", "falsehoods", and "shameful". Your repeated and habitual tendency to be nasty to any who disagree with you is not, and has never been, condusive to civil discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone assume good faith in an instance when we've found clear and stunning misrepresentation of sources?. He wrote that four random searches yielded sources that discuss a particular episode in detail and offer critical commentary about that episode yet when one examines the random google news search, the random google books search, the random google news search identical to the first random google news search but held up as a different search and the random google books search identical to the first random google books search but held up as a different search one finds no detailed writing or any critical commentary on this episode and, for the most part, the sources on offer don't even mention the episode at all. These random searches were not offered up as potenitally containing sources but were asserted to actually contain sources that are not in fact there. That's misrepresentation, plain and simple, and it's an ARS tactic i've seen so often that it's either a case of bad faith, or a case of extreme reading comprehension problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We (or most of us anyway) assume good faith because policy instructs that we do so... and does not condone nor excuse the opposite. It is your words here that are the misrepresentation when you act as if you and only you know what was intended by my statement and my offering of a search parameter. If I did not specifically write "These sources specifically show X, Y, and Z"... please do not pretend that they did, as your words are not mine. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will be the third, and last time, I will ask for an actual source. So far, you've failed to provide a single one. I will assume good faith that your previous asertions that you have one to offer were true, just poorly executed. So here's your big chance. Just provide one. Can you?Bali ultimate (talk) 00:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mis-represent/mis-quote/mis-interpret my words yet again... as I never once offered a specific source, but simply and in good faith an opinion and a search parameter... an opinion you have denigrated ad nauseum. And, as this discussion seems destined to a "no consensus close and continue merge discussions already ongoing on the article's talk page", anything I might offer here will be far better served if offered there. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. We're in agreement. You lied when you said you'd found multiple sources to support your position. Good faith nothing. You claimed that you'd found sources. You now say that you didn't find souces. Someone's got some splaiining to do!Bali ultimate (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only one agreeing with you is that fellow in your mirror. What I offered, and repeated several times above... before and during your continued mis-representing, mis-quoting, and mis-interpretation of my words aside... was an opinion and a search parameter. Your continued and repeated incivility is not at all conducive to civil discussion. What opining editors might agree to, is that the lies and incivilty are yours. I had asked if civility and polite discourse were really that difficult for you. You have answered my question. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 86.20.178.43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  1. might be acceptable as a source for an article on Rick Berman, passing mention of the episode
  2. Episode guide from 'Star Trek 101'
  3. brief plot description in an episode guide book
  4. brief mention of the episode in an interview with one of the actors therein
  5. episode guide from startrek.com
  6. ? can't read it, can't evaluate

and I have found nothing else that suggests that this is a pivotal episode or that it has been widely discussed in either the real universe, the TV industry, or anything other than the Star Trek fan-merchandise industry. A redirect to an episode list containing a brief plot synopsis (such as the one at reference 3) would seem to be sensible.  pablo 15:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding reference 6, it's an 1100-word article about the first season. The writer gets specific about four of the episodes, "the best" in his opinion, "Fight or Flight" being one of them. 55 words describe the episode's plot and some justification of his opinion of it. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I realise that quality is more important than quantity, that can't be very detailed, surely? 55 words isn't much. There are 46 words in your post above (not counting signature).  pablo 08:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those 55 words include a description of the episode's plot? We have enough plot/credit reiteration and may I reiterate myself that the viewing the episode provides for this information itself. And when the plot is reiterated, what else is left out of those 55 words? WikiuserNI (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That comment about "database of news articles" prompted me to take a look at the Cengage Learning database using (tx ("Fight or Flight")) And (tx ("Star Trek")). The relevant hits are:
  • Bryant, Bobby. "UPN's newest `Star Trek' looks like a gamble that's paying off." State [Columbia, SC] 16 Sept. 2002. This is a 958 word article that lists four of the "best" episodes in season 1 with with 56 words being a summary of the "Fight or Flight" episode. It looks like this was first published to www.thestate.com and then redistributed. Per the archive search function on that site the original title was "Free Enterprise" and they report "Published on 2002-09-17, Page D1, State, The (Columbia, SC)." The article is behind a paywall and is currently reference #6 for the "Fight or Flight" Wikipedia article.
  • Hussein, Terrina. "The Enterprise returns." Asia Africa Intelligence Wire August 22, 2004. This is a 2108 word article originally published in Sunday Mail (Malay) that seems to summarize every episode in the season. The "Fight or flight" section is 73 words. This section of text is nearly word-for-word identical to the text that's available on various sites. This message board post has the wording (in yellow) and credits the source as www.startrek.com. Thus we can discard this news article as a reliable/independent source. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All 3 books are searchable, and you can peek at the contents of the pages. None of them seems to be talking about the "fight or flight" episode. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:02, 20 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fight_or_Flight_(Star_Trek:_Enterprise)&oldid=1137848336"