Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars (6th 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   keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars
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
 * Articles for deletion/Star Wars vs. Star Trek


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Following the curt and rather supercilious removal of a PROD tag without explanation by Colonel Warden I have no alternative but to list the article for deletion. Read over the reasoning behind my initial tag, and do bear in mind that Wikipedia is not Top Trumps :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  quaestor  ─╢ 20:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep- a reasonably encyclopedic topic that's certainly sourceable and possible to do without delving into OR. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. "Similarities—both titles feature the word "Star" at the beginning." It's ludicrous. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  draftsman  ─╢ 20:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So ludicrous that the Denver Post has an article directly on topic: . Umbralcorax (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a newspaper column. We do not decide on what topics to have articles on the basis of what the Denver Post publishes (admirable publication as it no doubt is); they print what will appeal to their readers from a commercial and journalistic standpoint. We, on the other hand, are trying to produce an encyclopedia. The fact that newspapers have material on the fusion/comparison/whatever of two subjects does not automatically immunise it from criticism over here at Wikipedia. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Not-content  ─╢ 20:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, are you implying that, "Similarities—both titles feature the word 'Star' at the beginning," isn't ludicrous and unencyclopedic?! ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannator  ─╢ 20:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nominator has failed to engage with the article at its talk page. Proposed deletion tags are for uncontroversial deletions which does not include articles which have already been contested at AFD.  Removal of such tags is to be expected and so is not the occasion for an AFD renomination contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never heard that one must discuss an article on its talk page before AfDing. Also I suspect (based on the other AfD below) that his motives for nominating this one are based on his understanding of WP's general mission (right or wrong), not on any specific problems with this article that could be fixed. (i.e. the article by its very nature has no place on WP, there is nothing to discuss on its talk page.) Northwestgnome (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have any issue with an article, you should first discuss it on the article's talk page which is provided for that purpose.  Please see our deletion policy which states, "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors.".  Or, if one has general issues with Wikipedia's mission, they should be taken to general forums such as Village Pump. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. However he does not have an issue with the article itself. He has an issue with the article being on WP. Not because it is a bad article. I think it is a good article on a subject which I enjoy myself. I would love to read this article on a SW or ST fan blog. However I think an encyclopedia is for facts, not comparisons. I voted to Keep this article because in this case the comparisons which have been made in WP:Reliable sources are themselves notable and worth an article. Also he does not want to change WP policy he just wants it to be enforced (and understood) by the WP community. How do I know what he thinks? Because I have Vulcan/Jedi mind reading powers. Thanks again.Northwestgnome (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See Comparison of Vulcan and Jedi mind reading powers :-) Pointillist (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Not all "comparison of..." articles are appropriately encyclopedic, but some definitely are. One way of determining what comparison articles are appropriate is whether or not significant media outlets have found the comparison to be newsworthy or interesting in some way. As referenced above, these two franchises have often been the subject of comparison by notable media sources, and Wikipedia notability as a matter of policy is often determined precisely by what newspapers choose to print. This is obviously not a completely parallel case to that of determining notability for an individual, but the same general principles apply. Ben Kidwell (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, rewrite, and retitle to "Comparisons of Star Trek and Star Wars." This article should report on notable comparisons made between the two in reliable sources, but not itself compare them. That's the job of magazine articles and blogs, not encyclopedias, as I said below on another AfD on this page. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Geeky subject but...appears to be well sourced. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - the nominator says "I have no alternative but to list the article for deletion". It may come as a surprise but he had; he could have fixed the article by editing. This is a sourced article for which I see no basis for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep At last, something that Star Trek and Star Wars fans agree upon. Still, the title should probably be moved to something else.  This is mostly about the good-natured rivalry between the fans of two epic franchises, isn't it?  The "similarities" and "differences" section is remarkably moronic and doesn't do justice to either series.  Seriously, "Both franchises are set in outer space, both titles feature the word 'Star' at the beginning..." (Hmmm... Star Trek, Star Wars... Captain, I detect a pattern here.) Mandsford (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what I have also been trying to say. The article should be about the fan rivalry and about more intellectual comparisons which have been published. Not a list of simularities and differences. If this was done then no problem with this article. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Deletion rationale isn't convincing... if it's guaranteed to be original research/POV, that implies there are no sources comparing Star Wars and Star Trek, but that's not the case... there are plenty of sources, and some are even cited in the article already. It's also not redundant to the main articles on the franchises, as it's unlikely they could devote much space to comparisons between eachother, so this article will have much more detailed information than they could provide. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep though it needs improvement (badly) that's not a reason to delete. We've got a documentary on the topic and an article by Brin.  I think the topic is notable. Plus, I'm unsure why one would prod an article that has been to AfD/VfD so many times.  That's not what a prod is for... Hobit (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but it needs a refocus, per Northwestgnome. i see 3 areas this article could be discussing: the fictional universes of the franchises, the business strategies of the franchises, and the rivalry between fan bases. If it focuses mostly on the latter two, and keeps finding reliable sources that document this separate from us, ok. I think the fear is that it can appear to be more fancruft (comparing fictional universes and doing original research in the process), which it could easily become. I think just enough evidence is presented to justify an article here, so if people like working on it, ok by me. Note: this subject should probably be documented as a crass business strategy to increase sales of product, similar to the Beatles/Stones "rivalry". doesnt make it any less real or notable, just sad.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think marketers are that smart. :-) Also if reliable sources compare the universes that should be covered too.Northwestgnome (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cool, well sourced, article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As with any article which brings together two distinctly notable topics, notability of the concept must be demonstrated by referencing significant coverage from reliable independent sources to demonstrate that a standalone article is justified. The coverage in this article is trivial in nature to say the least: it does not contain anything but trival details about the two genres (e.g. "Both franchises are set in outer space"), and some of the opinons expressed are pure original research (e.g. Each franchise's popularity is marked by a drop in another). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be an editing issue since there are oodles of reliable independent sources with substantial coverage of this subject. For example here's one from Sunday, October 11, 2009 . ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Well cited material. Unusual but encyclopedic material. Alyeska (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I find your lack of keep disturbing. It is not logical. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is supposed to be a !vote, you'll need to include a rationale. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  prorogation  ─╢ 17:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would, but CoM covered it nicely.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to oodles (thanks to CoM for using one of my favorite words) of reliable sources, and sheer awesomeness. I could contribute about 15,000 words of original research on this subject, were Wikipedia to allow it. Should really be titled "Why Star Trek is better than Star Wars" though. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Prod wasn't remotely appropriate for such a hotly contested article. There are plenty of sources that directly compare the two franchises in adequate depth. Now, what about Comparison between Harry Potter and Star Wars... Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the dozens of reasons listed above. Abyssal (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sole Soul (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - while consensus can change, it is not likely in this case. This has beeen repeatedly kept by the Community. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have any reason to keep per se, or are you just saying that? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  UK EYES ONLY  ─╢ 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I don't just !vote, and I am very well known in this community for saving articles at WP:AfD, as may be seen from my user page. Yes, I like it, of course; I'm a geek. I just attended Albacon and I write fan fiction, which must be in my blood as one of sisters created one of the first fanzines (hmm, that's another idea for an article about a BLP).  For what it's worth, this is a valid article; it is well-referenced and encyclopedic. I assumed (please see WP:AGF) that was unstated. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I think it is snowing. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If several newspapers/magazines that meet WP:RS run articles on a topic especially over a period of a few years, the topic is almost guaranteed to be encyclopedic. I can't think of an exception and this article certainly isn't one of them. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although I supported its deletion last time this came up, the current version of the article is vastly different to its previous (deleted) incarnations. It still needs careful monitoring and occasional trimming for unsupported OR, synthesis, and fanboy material, but it now contains sources that support the existence of the debate and is largely limited to verifiable information. EyeSerene talk 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep, as notability has been asserted and the subject is adequately covered in reliable sources. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is properly covered by reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per almost everyone else here. Notability is asserted and the article includes multiple reliable sources, including Forbes and the New York Times. Rray (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems that existing WP policy allows such an article to exist (as far as I know) but I feel that we are pushing the boundaries of what an encyclopaedia is. Encyclopaedias are collections of facts. Comparisons are not really factual and are open to a POV. Is there need for a new policy? The article is not quite WP:CRUFTCRUFT! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * NOTE that there is a similar discussion going on at Articles for deletion/Comparison of Australian and New Zealand governments . -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are we getting a little systemic bias in the voting due to the possibility of a high number of science fiction fans on WP? Just asking. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:20, 16 October 2009 (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.