Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek (Fan made productions)

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 of the debate was Keep. Holy smokes peoples. Emotions have run a bit hot in this one, (could we not get quite so hot in future? Could we not use pejorative "cruft" terms in noms of articles that clearly have had a fair number of contributors? Could we not cast aspersions on the nominators and fellow commentators?) but on balance I think the keeps (which numerically far outnumber the deletes) have the stronger argument here. Some admin has to make the call on this, it's way overdue for a close. I think Keep carries the day here. Disagree? Heck I have one WP:DRV going already, why not two? But really, this one is pretty clearcut to me. --++Lar: t/c 04:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek (Fan made productions)[edit]

  • Delete large directory of nn-trekcruft, link pharm, cruft pharm— Milkandwookiees (T | C) 16:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has quite a bit of information that the average user can find useful. This is one of the few places on the net where a fair and unbiased presentation of all Trek Fan Films can be found. JusticeCEO 16:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly extensive and unbiased. Fan films can be notable, and lists of them like this one (or the Star Wars fan fiction page) don't need to be deleted. Kafziel 16:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. wikipediatrix 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JusticeCEO. Vadder 16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Given my other votes, you'd think I'd be in favor of this removing this article. I'm not. I think there's far too much Trek fancruft on Wikipedia, and by my AfD votes noms am attempting to prune it down considerably (to the great outrage of the Trek fan community), but that doesn't mean every single trace of Trek fan films has to be stamped out, especially a useful article like this that can absorb some of the contents of the articles that do pass AfD. The phenomenon is definitely worthy of coverage in an article, even if every single item is not worth its own. — WCityMike (T | C)  ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓  16:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thank you for your enlighted view of this. I'm glad to see that there is no malice in your AfD's. JusticeCEO 16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'd agree, however, there are more than one of those there that likely should be kept, despite your noms.--Mhking 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As others have said. Fanfilms are a relevent phenomena, and should be listed in some form or another.
  • Strong keep. What an amazing coincidence that this should happen right now! ... or is humour being uncivil? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirok (talk • contribs)
    • comment Kirok didn't sign his allegation, but I might as well address this: no, I'm not User:Milkandcookies User:Milkandwookies (dammit why can't i get this link right?!?!?!) User:Milkandwookiees. I even actively suggested [1] to TheRealFennShysa that if he needs proof of this, he might want to try WP:RCU, which he is [2]. If they choose to accept the request, you guys have proof. If not, you'll have to take my word for it, but let me counterpropose this: if I was attempting to create a second identity for nefarious purposes, would I (a) point a complainant towards Checkuser; (b) copy verbatim my talk page header into the new account's talk page header, and (c) reproduce my signature exactly (minus the highlighted part)? — WCityMike (T | C) ↓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ↓ 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where on Earth do you get from the two sentences above that I am insinuating that you are milkandwookiees???!!! I was suggesting nothing of the sort! Are we reading the same thing? Could you explain the logic behind it? Because I'll be jiggered if i can! You're right i didn't sign that last post but i don't have any fancy techie hoogywhatsits to do all the donkey work for me and i am fallible. Mea Culpa. I would go back and fix it but i can see that you have. You're not perhaps assuming bad faith that I was trying to hide my identity are you? I have it on good authority that this is frowned upon. --Kirok of L'Stok 21:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We've come to a peace, hopefully, and this is an old comment, so I'll just very calmly point out the reasoning behind my assumption was the phrase "what an amazing coincidence," which referred to my AfD deletions the same day, as well as the reference to civility, a charge I had been bringing up in our disagreement at the time. As for signing your post for you, it's common practice for others to sign unsigned comments and votes by using the {{unsigned}} template so that we have a clear record of who said what ... and, no, I wasn't assuming you were trying to hide your identity, as that's intensely difficult to do here given Wikipedia's tracking of page histories. — Mike •  21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have to agree, insofar as I do not believe you to be milkandwookies. Personally I think this has happened indrectly because of the other AfDs. Nick Cook 17:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject of fan made Star Trek productions is certainly notable, and gets enough reliable press coverage, to justify a general article on the subject... even if most of their individual articles should be fired out of Wikipedia in a cannon. - Motor (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Brand new user Milkandwookiees has suddenly nominated an awful lot of articles for deletion with very flimsy reasoning. Possible WP:POINT? TheRealFennShysa 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, or an editor who has just discovered how much rubbish there is on Wikipedia that is defended by small groups of editors who collectively vote keep when their articles are AFDed, and then start trying to get him blocked or banned? However... I don't know his reasons... but even I think he's going too fast and have asked him to give the fancruft nominations a rest for a few days to let the current ones go through the process. - Motor (talk) 17:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whoever he is he knows enough about the system to be able to revert the admin vandal warnings about himself. Here and here.--Kirok of L'Stok 21:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, MDD4696 removed the first complaint and wrote an edit description, "Most of Milkandwookiees contributions seem fine, look to be in good faith." [3]. Milkandwookiees removed the second one, which was not kosher, as he's not an admin. However, in that particular board you posted on, the admins remove concerns once they are removed — due to its extremely high traffic, it serves not as a permanent record, but as a "to-do" list — with items removed instead of crossed off once they are accomplished. — Mike •  21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and merge all the crufty individual articles back here. --- GWO
  • Keep --Fan films are certainly a notable phenomenon in and of themselves; I would not be opposed to the other Trek fan films being merged here if they absolutely have to be deleted. --Mhking 17:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An index of major Trek fan-produced films seems of general interest. Some/all of the individual films should probably be merged here. Espresso Addict 18:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Motor & GWO. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't understand any reason for the nomination. (I've nominated a number of articles for deletion which turned out to be notable, although I couldn't see it at the time. I was often willing to withdraw the nomination if I could see I was wrong.). I also question why a new user would use "nn-trekcruft, link pharm, cruft pharm", where cruft seems to be a wiki-ism. He could have been reading for a long time, and joined to submit the AfDs, I suppose, so it's not conclusive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep me up, Scotty BigDT 22:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a place for Star Wars fans, it's an encyclopedia OTAKU 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiiight. Not Star Wars fans; just anime fans. ;) Kafziel 02:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a sad indictment on your opinions and how much attention you've paid to the articles you are recommending for deletion - this an article about Star Trek! [Shakes head sadly] How many more people are voting because of their personal distaste for fandom in any form?--Kirok of L'Stok 15:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that's one thing we've been dealing with constantly with this article, and which I think may be behind this mass AfD, as one person in particular was absolutely incensed that we cut his unverifiable film from the list. The timing is interesting... TheRealFennShysa 14:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I haven't voted in the other mass AfDs but I feel at least this overview of Star Trek fan films (or any fan films like the equally large - if not extremely larger - Star Wars fan films out there) should stay. Today's amateur film maker/actor is tomorrow's Steven Spielberg/Harrison Ford (or insert your own famous Hollywood types). PirateGent 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Wikipedia, which is well-known for its excellent coverage of fandoms in general, obviously needs this article. Gildir 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are very many fan made Star Trek productions, some notable, some not, and we should have an article describing the concept and listing the more notable productions. JIP | Talk 14:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My POV on this entry is probably no surprise to some here. From the begining, I wanted to contribute to this entry and was blocked. I want to be inclusionary, but others here have stopped that. This entry is greatly biased and gives an incorrect, wrong, and hugely misinformed impression on this fan film subject. It is clearly exclusionary and is selectively biased. This entry negates the huge amount of pre-Internet fan films that were available just because of a lack of Google hits. Many well known fan film producers know of this Wiki biase problem and just do not care to contribute here. Fan film listings are handled more fairly and even handledly on other Internet sites. This faux fan film Wiki entry has been very selectively written to keep some already produced fan films out of this entry by the selectively and unsophisticly enforcement of wikipedia policies to accomplish a censureship objective on this fan films subject. How can any unfinished fan film have an entry here? They do. While many finished fan films entries are treated to a gauntlet of a draconian enforcement of the Wiki rules heaped on them by other Wiki members here that keeps their information out of this fan film entry? This is the state of this fan film entry and this causes a biased fan film entry. When one unpopular fan film producer adds an entry about his film, he is told by other psuedo non-Wiki staff members here that his entry is dissallowed because his entry is not a 'neutral POV', all the while other 'favored' fan film producers are allowed to write their fan film entry with no such interferance or pre-requisites. This results in a biased misinformed entry. Tracing the affiliation of many of this Wikipedia fan film entry's contributors with the many competing fan film factions and fans(who have contributed here) would certainly enlighten prudent people as to the likelihood of their biase motivations they choose to exhibit here by their wholesale elimination some other competing fan films listings. It would also be informative to illustrate the biased motivations of many of the Wiki entry authors who repetative delete opposing other fan films information to be openly shared here. My contention is the entries authors have colaboratively published an misinformed 'elitist' fan films entry based on an antagonistic agenda to other fan films trying to be listed here. This group of authors or 'clique' keeps other fan films information out of this entry by unfair and improper means. Please check the LONG discussion page for who is doing unfairly what to whom here. It could be seen that this much flawed fan film entry is monopolized by a few fan film maker factions very much like a prejusticed Good Olde Boy Club of very questionable parental ancestory. Netwriter 17:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wow. Nearly half of a 1,000-word essay. — Mike •  17:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG YES! Whilst we have attention on this article, could someone please look at the manner in which it has been conducted and give this man a fair and unbiassed opinion on whether he has been unfairly done by! Perhaps we can get some closure on his interminable allegations this way. God alone knows I've made every attempt to engage in dialogue but he deletes what he doesn't like, ignores the questions and suggestions that might solve his problem and rants on about the same thing again and again. This was the subject of a recent disgusting flame on the talk page of this article.--Kirok of L'Stok 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the essay above an admission that the sole motivation for deletion is that his contributions have been rejected? From long experience with this person, I doubt that even having a properly constituted authority look over his work and rendering a judgement will work. He has a habit on the IMDB, TrekBBS, and IntrepidBBS of claiming that those authorities who find against him are also biased, or have somehow been "subverted" by the "other side". He made similar accusations against the Variety writer of a positive article on Hidden Frontier. But by all means, let's get his contributions looked at by someone who isn't involved. Whether he's been treated unfairly or not, he deserves his day in court.JohnWhiting 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment You are wrong, John Whiting non-neutral point of view and self promotional motivations of Hidden Frontier fan film commenting here. Trouble with your reading ? YOu are wrong, just like the many times that you try to put words in my mouth in other public places. The entry is clearly biased because it only includes certain elite cliquish video projects over others have similar or more worth. Even unfinished videos are listed here over finshed ones. Consistant requirements, I don't think so. The listing requirements are slanted and change according to the most recent Wiki member's whim and based on the unethical collaborative efforts to censure this entry against other valid fan film producers and me. Netwriter 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentJust what exactly does all that have to do with the discussion of the article's deletion? Are you saying that because you can't get your film listed the article must be deleted? The whole subject of Trek fan films must be exsponged from the field of human knowledge because this article does not recognise your film? The subject in question here is whether Trek fan films as a subject should be included as an article on Wikipedia. NOT the quality of the writing OR the content OR any other problems. I am supporting the call for some sort of closure on your interminable and repetative rants. It is a waste of time and effort - time and effort that could be put to better use writing a article which is what we are supposed to be here for!--Kirok of L'Stok 14:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a no-brainer! DillPickle 21:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE No brainer is right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.50.72.84 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Please note that the preceeding comment came from an IP that has had a comment removed from Talk:Star Trek (Fan made productions) for violating WP policy. The comment was characterized as a "Long-winded rant and personal abuse" by the removing editor. Vadder 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
      • Be further advised that the same IP pasted the identical comment on my discussion page, garnering this person their second warning. JohnWhiting 00:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • comment In the middle of Conflux III, the major SciFi Con in Canberra, Aus, where I have arranged the screening of Borg War and Star Wreck. They would have been overjoyed to have had more such as New Voyages, Exeter or Hidden Frontier but we could not get a waver from CBS Legal. If this can be resolved, Star Trek fan films could and would be shown as exhibition films in film festivals, comparing favourably with other fan films and Indies. The artistic merit and social impact of fan films is at least comparable to low budget Indies, to deliniate between the two smacks of elitist discrimination.--Kirok of L'Stok 20:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Got no legal copyright waiver from Paramount, Viacom, CBS ? Imagine that! Netwriter 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment<ahem> If I might ask the indulgence of the group to address Netwriter's off-topic comment? That's right. Stoney silence, so we did the right thing and didn't show them. Luckily Star Wreck has its own creative commons license as a parody and Borg War isn't a fan film at all technically - it's "new game material", check his website.
  • Keep — Nathan (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Here's my arguement: Just because something isn't 'noteworthy' in someone else's opinion, doesn't make it so for everyone else. There are people who go to the Wikipedia to find general information about fan films, or more to the point, about Star Trek/Star Wars/etc fan films specifically. If these links are just sites that just go to only paysites, then I would have to agree that pages like that have to be deleted. But fan films aren't generally made for profit, what little money is made goes to production costs. Plus, if someone wanted to see more fan films abou the subject, Wikipedia is a very reliable source to find links to other fan films. Art for Art's sake. That's what being a fan is all about. --D2K 15:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you hit it right on the head D2K. I know I've asked my parents about "noteworthy" events in history that they lived through and they didn't consider the events noteworthy. (quote by my mom "Cuban Missile Crisis? Didn't pay attention to it. I was just worried if I had a date on Saturday night.") as they say "one man's trash is another man's treasure" and I think that sums up all these fan films. PirateGent 19:46, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Trek_(Fan_made_productions)&oldid=1138790413"