Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars (5th nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars vs. Star Trek
AfDs related to this article:
 * Talk:Star Trek versus Star Wars
 * Votes for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars
 * Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount)
 * Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination)
 * Deletion review/Log/2007 September 3
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Vague, waffly fancruft essay consisting almost entirely of original research and synthesis. Vquex (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This again? Delete as nn Star-cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article is unnecessary and should be merged into the Star Wars/Star Trek articles. – Jerry  teps  22:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as "Star-cruft"; non-notable and wholly in-universe. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello!  23:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination fails to consider whether the article can be improved rather than deleted per WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT. Notability seems well established by reference to reliable sources and there seem to be plenty more, e.g. some news hits, and so improvement seems quite feasible. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The two separate subjects are notable but the rivalry between them isn't. Artene50 (talk) 01:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for idle speculation about incomparable hypotheticals on the part of sci-fi fans, even if millions of us have engaged in this precise speculation :) RayAYang (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not an encyclopedia article, and not a reasonable subject for one. --Stormie (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why would this need to be described here at all??Wikigonish (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This rivalry is covered significantly in reliable sources as shown in the references section of the article thus establishing notability. The references directly cover the rivalry between the franchises so it is not synthesis to have this article. If there is original research it can be removed by editing and does not require the whole article to be deleted. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete "My favorite movie is better than yours" is not an encyclopedic stand-alone topic. If need be, this can be covered in one paragraph in the top-level articles, but not as a separate article. – sgeureka t•c 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have made some significant changes to the article, adding a couple of good sources. These changes invalidate most of the above comments by showing that there is significant critical commentary which compares the two works in a notable way. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not impressed. It's still all synthesis -- WP:SYN is the reason why I nominated it for deletion in the first place. Vquex (talk) 16:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sections I added are largely paraphrases of the sources cited. Please indicate an original conclusion to which you object.  Or consider Brin's point about Star War's Nietschean message as contrasted with Star Trek's quite different position.  How is this source misrepresented? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Unsure I agree the rivalry is a notable concept and occurance and should have plenty of secondary sources (if Sci-Fi magazines are secondary sources in this case) but, feel the article needs a significant rewrite and probably a renaming (for easier search purposes). Whether is is "beyond saving" I'll leave up to the more experienced. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but ONLY if rewritten from scratch. The topic is viable, and the fact it's recognized by Forbes confirms its notability (if all other sources were removed, Forbes alone would be enough). Problem is the article has become too much of an essay, though I disagree about it being cruft. This article could be rewritten easily by touching on the Forbes article and also citing things like the documentary (which I believe was called Star Trek vs Star Wars) that was aired on television a few years ago. The rivalry between these two fan groups is very well noted and has been a major part of the SF world since 1977, so an article is fine. But the current one needs major surgery. 23skidoo (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as it is an incontrovertible fact that the subject has received non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, specifically articles devoted to the subject in Forbes and Salon.com, and the scholarly work of Russ (Joanna Russ (1978) 'SF and Technology as Mystification', Science Fiction Studies, 5, p. 254.) and the comprehensive response in Tullock et al. . The article has WP:PROBLEMS with WP:SYNTH, referencing and fancruft, but these are obviously irrelevant to the encyclopedic nature or lack thereof of the subject matter. Move to close per WP:SNOW. Skomorokh  16:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Skomorokh, that is an exceptionally poor use of WP:SNOW, which is itself highly controversial. I appreciate you have strong feelings that this should be kept, but in effect you are dismissing the opinions of many other editors; that comes across as hubristic and arrogant. Eusebeus (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong feelings about nerd arcana on the internet? You must be joking :) I am not dismissing the opinions of other editors; the last delete preference was voiced before multiple RS's proving notability were added, and not all editors are familiar with the distinction between the notability of a subject and the quality of an article. My move to snowclose was based on the (reasonable, I think) thought that no neutral editor in their right mind could conclude that the references explicitly provided fail to satisfy WP:N. Apologies if my tone came across as arrogant, English is not my first language. Regards, Skomorokh  17:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been nominated for deletion before. See Talk:Star Trek versus Star Wars, Votes for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars, Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount), andArticles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th nomination) and Deletion review/Log/2007 September 3. --Phirazo 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete If you think this is bad, you should have seen it the last time round. It seems any article on this topic will backslide into WP:OR. All that can really be reliably sourced is the existence of this rivalry, but not much else. --Phirazo 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I must confess to being mystified with this comment; "It seems any article on this topic will backslide into WP:OR" is not only speculative, but also completely irrelevant to the notability of the topic. Please clarify how the coverage of the subject cited above is trivial or why the sources are unreliable. Skomorokh  17:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was an article on this before that was entirely WP:OR as well. After separate attempts this article still can't be written without editor's subjective opinions on this nerd argument.  All that can really be said about this topic is that the rivalry exists.  There may be some marginal notability, but there isn't enough here for an article.
 * Keep per Do not call things cruft, Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), and What Wikipedia is. Article could perhaps be expanded to cover other uses of the Star Wars versus Star Trek comparison, i.e. such as this.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't just say "cruft" -- I also said "original research" and "synthesis", thank you very much. Vquex (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I also said that it is unoroiginal research. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Aside from the malapropical idea of "unoriginal research", those links you provide to are mere essays and convey nothing more than incidental personal opinion, save for WP:5P, for which you provide an idiosyncratic interpretation that other editors should in no way feel bound to observe. Jus' sayin' Eusebeus (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Eusebeus, I thought you didn't want us replying to each other's posts in AfDs? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But it is cruft. --Phirazo 04:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If this isn't "content [that] is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans", than I don't know what is. --Phirazo 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Italicized for emphasis: "small populartion of enthusiastic fans"?  I would have to say the population of these franchises "fans" is actually quite substantial.  And in event the topic is documentable as in, , , etc.  If the concept of Star Wars vs. Star Trek is worthy enough of a whole section heading in a published book, plus the other sources, it is worthy of an article.  Additional published comparison can be found in this book.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant keep The original research needs to be removed from this and I'm loath to anchor an article on a column from forbes that is clearly filler, but sourcing supports marginal notability and the coverage is significant. Protonk (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has several references, so it can't be entirely original research. What can't be sourced can be removed later. Topic is encyclopedic and needs coverage. I also noticed significant improvement in just two days after AfD nomination, so there certainly has potential for development here. Keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, topic is adequately covered by existing science fiction articles and this essay isn't sufficiently covered in itself by reliable third-party sources to warrant its own article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of footnotes, why not spend time adding information to articles instead of deleting articles? Inclusionist (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

*Delete cruft that requires original research and wp:syn to make an article - so that's a no-no. (and no I wouldn't like a link to an essay called "don't call things cruft"). --Prisongangleader (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC) Indef blocked sockpuppet. Skomorokh 23:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sourcing for an article of this length, and I know I've seen more during my lifetime on this in just Entertainment Weekly alone, let alone other sources. Underdeveloped article, and maybe not ever FA-grade, but notable. rootology  ( T ) 15:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? There's abundant coverage of this specific (non-synthesised) topic:    ; Joanna Russ (1978) 'SF and Technology as Mystification', Science Fiction Studies, 5, p. 254.; Tulloch, John (1995). Science Fiction Audiences. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0415061407. Please explain.  Skomorokh  17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:ITSCRUFT. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note Prisongangleader has less than 20 edits, but seems very well versed in wikipolicy, more so than most new wikipedians. You draw your own conclusions. Inclusionist (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just saw this. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but know the difficulties of the article. This article should be kept since it does or can review the topic, which is covered in reliable sources, such as Forbes magazine.  There is a problem with this topic in that WP cannot engage in original research (which many editors would probably write a very good essay on comparing Star Wars and Star Trek).  Therefore, WP must rely on reliable sources and there are certain some (which lends support for "keep") but these articles are limited.  The potential problems of this article may point to "delete" but policy dictates that the subject, not the quality of writing, determines deletion.  Good luck. Spevw (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:FANCRUFT WP:NOR and WP:SYN. I think this article sums up what wikipedia should not be. Furthermore just because the two notable series can be compared, does not make the comparison itself notable --T-rex 23:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What criteria of notability are you using to inform this judgment? On Wikipedia, a topic is considered notable if there exists non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Are Forbes and Salon not reliable sources independent of the subject? Is this coverage trivial? Please explain, as aside from the point about notability, your rationale seems to be WP:HOPELESS. Sincerely, Skomorokh  00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that coverage is very trivial. I'm not saying that these are not reliable sources, but rather that they say very little. While Star Wars and Star Trek are both individualy notable, the competition between the two is not. I don't see how WP:HOPELESS applies to anything that has been said. --T-rex 00:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See below comment to Phirazo for more substantial sourcing. References to SYN and OR are only relevant in respect of HOPELESS, in my opinion. Regards, Skomorokh  03:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Cruft" is never a good reason for deleting, nor is a topic covered in secondary sources original research. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you tried to delete WP:FANCRUFT, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean that it doesn't apply --T-rex 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Force is behind keeping this article; make it so. It is referenced in reliable, independent sources, so I have to ignore my personal desire to want to delete it. Frank  |  talk  00:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article is pretty poor, but I've seen enough discussion of this topic in real publications to think the subject is legitimate.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are sources, but they are all lousy. The Forbes article only establishes that the rivalry exists, David Brin's Salon article is an opinion piece, the Harvard Crimson article is an opinion piece, the Times article doesn't even mention Star Trek, and the DVD documentary looks decidedly amateurish.  The "Differences" section has a clear Trek POV (and conveniently forgets that Star Trek has a fist fight in every episode).  The "Critical Commentary" section implies that Lucas is "defending" his work against Brin's article, even though the Brin article was published 4 months after the Lucas interview.  The online section is mercifully gone for the moment, but it will come back, as it has before.  People want this article to be about the long running argument as to whether or not the Enterprise could beat the Death Star, and the lengths some people are willing to go to to prove it.  There simply isn't enough here to write an article.  --Phirazo 02:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:POTENTIAL: "SF and Technology as Mystification" by prominent SF critic Joanna Russ in the academic journal Science Fiction Studies contains a lengthy comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars. Chapter 2 of Science Fiction Audiences by John Tullock (accessible through Google Books) contains a critical reading of Russ' work with additional commentary on the comparison, and Religions of Star Trek by Kraemer et al also contains a section devoted to the topic. To be blunt, I'm not sure you've done your homework. Regards,  Skomorokh  03:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice this section of a published secondary source in book form outright titled "Star Trek versus Star Wars" that contrasts the religions of the films in analytical format. There is more than enough to write an article.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The stated topic here is the rivalry between Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans. The sources you give don't talk about that.  --Phirazo 17:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT. That's a call for improving, expanding the article.  Not deleting it.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As a first step, I suggest you come up with some better sources. And some kind of consensus as to exactly what the purpose of this article should be -- a purpose that is not featured on WP:NOT. Vquex (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough have been presented to already justify the article's inclusion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you truly believed that then you wouldn't be continuing to respond to each and every new comment here which contained one of your keywords; it appears that the worthiness of an article for keeping on its merits is inversely proportionate to the amount of times you comment on its AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And in this case the article is worthy of being kept. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT is a non sequitur. The article is unfixable.  That is why it is up for deletion  --Phirazo 00:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is fixable, which is why editors are arguing to keep it. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as a verifiable rivalry, but should be moved to a more neutrally descriptive title, such as Star Trek-Star Wars rivalry, in line with such articles as Federer-Nadal rivalry or Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. -- Zim Zala Bim talk  03:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete In violation of WP:FANCRUFT, WP:SYN, and others. Also seems to favor Trek. What's up with that? :) Erik the  Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 18:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but WP:SYN is. Vquex (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which the article isn't. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:SYN can be cited as a reason for deletion.(!?) Please don't link randomly, this article is trying to advance no position. Similarities and differences are facts, and the critical commentary is properly referenced. There is no SYN issue. --PeaceNT (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.