Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society and Star Trek

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 Delete as original research. Contact me if you want to merge it, or transwiki it. --Haemo 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Society and Star Trek

Suggest to delete because this article is synthesized original research focused on an in-universe perspective. The content fails our Wikipedia:No original research policy and would be better suited for Memory Alpha or somewhere else. Burntsauce 23:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, nice set of essays that author should take pride in and save to his or her computer. But Wikipedia is not the place for essays of this type. Some of these ideas are expressed in the 1994 TIME magazine article, some of these have been talked about over the years. But most of this is "original research", which is Wikipedian for writing an encyclopedia article based on your own observations. Mandsford 00:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research is not Wikipedian for "writing an encyclopedia article based on your own observations." Original research is Wikipedian for writing an encyclopedia based on unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. Meaning if it can be sourced, primary or secondary, it can be put onto WP. Viperix 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three arguments, basically: 1. None of the claims that are without sources are of such a nature that they cannot be sourced. 2. The article is a relevant subarticle of Star Trek per WP:SIZE. That article has a 21 books long bibliography, most of which could be used here as well. Would a copy-paste do? 3. The article is from 2005, which makes it unlikely that this is one of the OR essays we often encounter here. Old articles should be deleted only with extreme care, as we cannot blame the original author for the different standards Wikipedia had back then, nor can we blame the author that no one has gotten around to editing the article yet. User:Krator (t c) 01:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krator's reason 1 (that the claims are "of such a nature that they cannot be sources") is at odds with reason 2 ("many of [the books in the main article] could be used here as well"). The notion that old articles require "extreme care" is specious; there's no guideline or policy that suggests that. It's just as likely that this collection of OR has sat in a quiet corner for its contents' non-notability and seldom-searched-for content. Anyhow, in the absence of reliable sources, this article should be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he said "None of the claims that are without sources are of such a nature that they cannot be sourced." Meaning that they indeed can be sourced, a statement which I agree with. Viperix 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge All of the information in this article can be verified using a primary source that I just added to the sources. "How William Shatner Changed the World" deals with most if not all of this info on here. Its companion video also deals with all of this stuff. Secondary sources could be found as well. I'm sure even tertiary sources exist with this topic. Viperix 07:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's clear that you still don't understand why this is "original research". "I saw it on a video" isn't sourcing. If you want to save the article, check out some books like The Making of Star Trek or Star Trek Creator. You can find things in the Star Trek section of your public library. Mandsford 12:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is clear is that you do not understand that "I saw it on a video" Equals, or =, or is the same as, saying: WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." I think you should read WP:OR two or three more times before you say that videos, and motion pictures are not primary sources. Why some editors think there is a difference between reading something in a book and referencing it and seeing something in a movie and referencing are different puzzles me. They are both published sources and per WP:OR as long as you don't have to interpret the info its fair game for referencing. Viperix 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also per OfficeGirl's point that this belongs in cultural influence of star wars I change my vote to merge, because I agree. Viperix 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE See WP:NOT#OTHOUGHT This is an essay. It does not treat its subject in the manner of an encyclopedic article. Just because other sources support the arguments in the essay does not make this an encyclopedic article. If we take out all of the essay part the usable bits can be merged and incorporated into Cultural influence of Star Trek. This should be published somewhere else-- somewhere that is not an encyclopedia, as it is a very good essay. Publish it where essays belong, but not in Wikipedia.OfficeGirl 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OfficeGirl makes strong points, probably better on Memory Alpha. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not even an essay, but a collection of mini-essays. Transfer the relevant content to Cultural influences of ST per OfficeGirl, the two articles already have some overlap, or to other appropriate articles if some enterprising Trekkie knows of any. Katherine Tredwell 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sorry, but it's WP:OR. Can some content be merged into existing articles? Bearian 14:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise. Bacchiad 03:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why, Bacchiad? We're not in the business of publishing original research. Burntsauce 17:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve 1. The nominator is incorrect in claiming this is an in-universe article; this article is entirely about how Star Trek was influenced by, and its influence on, the real world. 2. While lack of cited sources makes this article appear to be original research, most if not all of the claims made within can be found in reliable sources; for example, plenty of sources can be found on Google Scholar to support a well-sourced article on society and Star Trek. 3. I don't think this should be merged with Cultural influence of Star Trek; that article appears to be mostly about Star Trek's influence on popular culture, while this article is about its influence on society in general, and how it was influenced by its contemporary society. 4. I've sent the article to both WP:ARS and WP:ICU, as I think the topic is encyclopedic and the article can definitely be improved with effort. DHowell 21:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletions. —DHowell 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, POV, and ESSAY. Carlossuarez46 00:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Cultural influence of Star Trek, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LGBT Characters in The Star Trek Universe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dungeons & Dragons pop culture references -- Jreferee t/c 08:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename. It was unclear to me what the article was suppose to be about from the title alone but to me it seems like a decent one so far and simply needs a better focus and a few more sources to prove it's not original research for those asserting it must be and that such sources don't exist, etc. Trekky experts should be lured into our web of drama (perhaps with Shatner swag) to interlink and ensure that all the closely related articles are focused and sourced. Benjiboi 14:05, 4 October 2007 (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.