Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Away team (Star Trek term)

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 redirect to Landing party. The "delete" arguments are stronger because they are based in our policies regarding sources and not being a dictionary. The "keep" arguments do not address these issues, but consist of the vague appeals to usefulness and interest that often crop up in discussions about fiction fandom-related topics. There is interest in a possible merger with Landing party, but no clear consensus for that solution. I'm redirecting to enable further discussion about this. If no consensus appears to merge content from history the redirect may in time be deleted. Sandstein 15:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Away team (Star Trek term)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Five sentence stub kept with no consensus a few days over 10 years ago. The three refs are Star Trek reference materials and don't seem to me to be "independent secondary sources", per WP:GNG, or establish real world notability aside from a trivial reference by Heaven's Gate members, per WP:FICT. 9³ (talk) 05:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge It's not surprising that a Star Trek concept should be documented in reference material about Star Trek. In any case, there are sensible alternative to deletion, such as merger with landing party or away (sports), and we prefer this per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to Landing party, but keeping this article as standalone seems to fail WP:GNG as officially licensed works do not seem to be independent of the subject. 9³ (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ~~WP:NOTNEO~~ "NOTSENILOGISM" or possibly merge to Glossary of Star Trek terms, if there are enough entries to justify the latter's creation. Other than the Heaven's Gate wackos, nobody else has used it. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to another article like the glossary mentioned above Abote2 (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I think this content is suitable for inclusion as it is a distinctive star trek term, and someone who might not know star trek terms reading an article about star trek, of which there are many, might come across this term and might want to know what it means. Also a google search sees its use extensivly in articles about star trek as just a normal noun, meaning the term is in use - and again, people may read it and look it up. I was also a bit surprised to see in the three weeks preceding this AFD nomination, the article got 614 page views which is actually quite substantial - so people are reading this article. Clarityfiend's idea of a glossary of Star Trek terms isn't bad, however, it would require a dedicated person to actually create which I don't think we will get in which case we should just leave the article as is. This is not a developing neologism, so I don't see how WP:NOTNEO applies. Meszzy² (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and by extension I don't think it should be a glossary for every single Star Trek term giving individual articles to every phrase that can be found in more than two Star Trek books unless they're all compiled in a dedicated glossary page. 9³ (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, however, the current consensus on Wikipedia not being a dictionary is more to do with Wikipedia articles being about their subject rather than about the word like it would be in a dictionary, and not about whether a subject should or should not have an article (WP:NOTDIC). If we considered basic nouns unsuitable for inclusion then articles like Ship or Cat or Away (sports) should not exist. However, they do because the current consensus on Wikipedia not being a dictionary states that the Wikipedia article should focus on ships themselves rather than the exact definition of a ship. So what I see is an article that gets over 200 page views per week, about a term that seems to be regularly used star trek vocabulary. A google search also shows its used regularly as a term in many independent secondary sources about Star Trek - so I'm not seeing a reason for deletion. There's plenty of articles about star trek terms that seem to be just fine, like Tricorder or Dilithium (Star Trek) or Pon farr or Jefferies tube. Meszzy² (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial usage by independent sources verifies that it is a term used in Star Trek, but as opposed to the four articles you linked, which are distinct concepts, the subject is essentially just a fictional synonym of Landing party, where it could possibly fit in say a "Landing parties in media" section. There is also the issue of calling the current three references, which are officially licensed works, "reliable sources independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. 9³ (talk) 05:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A subjects notability for inclusion as it is determined per WP:GNG is by the existence of sources, not the three sources cited in the article (as per WP:NEXIST). As for WP:GNG itself, it states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." A quick look at google news shows many independent articles using the term. As for merging with Landing party - I feel the two articles are just a bit too distinct for a merge to work well. You have two terms with different names, one about a real-life naval term and one about a star trek spaceship term. Now they are similar, but I'm not sure if they are enough for a merge. Meszzy² (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A source using a term is not the same as a source discussing a term. The former is no use for establishing notability, that's the requirement for an entry in a dictionary. Wikipedia requires some actual discussion on which to build an article. SpinningSpark 16:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a glossary. There is just not enough out-of-universe material for a standalone article and likely never will be. The idea that this is a useful page for readers to look up is laughable for a term whose meaning is so self-evident. The claim that the number of pageviews is significant is also amusing. It's just a few dozen per day;[1] right down in the noise caused by bots and wikignomes. In fact, traffic has tripled as a result of this AfD, but is still insignificantly low. SpinningSpark 17:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete me up, Scotty Basically a dictionary def. with limited, if any, room for expansion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotty was never on an away team, in his day they were landing parties. This is a Next Gen thing. SpinningSpark 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with SpinningSpark. The sources to justify a stand-alone article just aren't there. This might be suitable for Memory Alpha, but not here. Reyk _YO! 08:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. A merge with the landing party article does sound interesting though as it really is just a sci-fi version of a landing party and would fit in that article's scope. Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2019 (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.