Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Genesis

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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Genesis[edit]

A Macguffin from two Star Trek movies, an article written entirely in universe in opposition to WP:FICT, and a subject on which there is not sufficient real-world information to justify an article. Indrian (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not written in universe (at least not anymore), and it's a significant within that universe. At least as notable as many articles in Category:Federation starships. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the article? Your comment makes absolutely no sense. Indrian (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:FAITH. "In the fictional Star Trek universe, . . ." -- not in universe. Pburka (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, naming the universe as fictional has nothing to do with the definition of in universe. In universe means that all the information in the article relates to the subject as it exists in a work of fiction as opposed to discussing the subject and its relation to the real world. If this article were to document the screenwriters development of the device, the manner in which it appeared in the movies, and what greater significance it has in an analysis of the themes of the movies that would be a real-world relevant article. Only a short summary of the fictional elements would be included as part of a larger whole. This article gives the in universe history of the projects creation, the in universe significance of the project, and various explanations as to how the project works and fits into the larger fictional universe. None of the statements currently in the article matter in a real-world context. That is in universe. If you want to keep and provide your reasoning for it, I have no problem with that, but your statement that the article is not written in universe is patently false as you would know if you bothered to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) (which for some reason is not linking properly or I would dab it). I do not doubt your good faith, but good faith does not make your statement any less nonsensical. Indrian (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The weak is the dopey "Project Genesis" title (this ain't Space 1999), that there's a lot more in-universe written here than could have been derived from movies two and three, and not as much real world as there should be. Keep, because there's plenty of real world notability: it was a plot point in two hit movies. The most striking point in Wrath of Khan was that both the good guys and the bad guys had their own ideas of what could be done with such a machine -- it didn't occur to the idealists that you could destroy civilization by terraforming right over the top of it. Moreover, it was a way out in case Leonard Nimoy changed his mind about quitting the role, and paved the way for III and IV. Finally, there was the humorous symbolism of a life-giving device in the shape of a... thing. Mandsford (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note last month's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesis Planet, closed as a merge to this article. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the very least the "Genesis Effect" graphics demo is notable as an early example of CGI.[1][2] The project was instrumental in the death of Spock, one of the most widely discussed character deaths in movie history, as well as his regeneration. Note also that story ramifications from the death of Spock and his regeneration through the project continued at least to Star Trek V. If that's just a Macguffin ... --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The early use of CGI is covered in Wrath of Khan, the Spock death and resurrection are covered in Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock respectively. How does this article, even if rewritten, add any understanding to that? The early CGI argument actually makes no sense if you think about it. Wrath of Khan the movie is notable as an early film using cgi to portray the Genesis effect and Genesis planet. The genesis project, ie, the concept as it exists within the Star Trek universe, has nothing to do with the movie's groundbreaking use of cgi. Indrian (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll try to clean up and source the article, but the topic has attracted nontrivial discussion outside Star Trek itself. Two chapters of the book Star Trek and Sacred Ground: Explorations of Star Trek, Religion, and American Culture (State University of New York Press, ISBN 0791443345) discuss the topic extensively, one in terms of Biblical symbolism, one in terms of the archetypal quest for immortality motif. Gender and Envy (Routledge, ISBN 0415916275) describes it as a "controllable" replacement for the symbolic mother myth. Several other books and journal articles mention it briefly to illustrate various arguments. A valid article is clearly possible here. Serpent's Choice (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the transitional themes between Star Trek TOS, Star Trek TNG, and Star Trek DS9. (And yes, I realize that the article doesn't cover that aspect of things.)jonathon (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2008 (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.