Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1


 * 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. W.marsh 17:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Differences between Stargate and Stargate SG-1

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

per WP:OR Chris! ct 02:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete At best these types of articles are uninteresting collection of trivia; of course the versions are going to differ between media. At worst these articles bleed off the few facts notable enough to have a citation from the main articles. Merge any sourced differences to the main articles. SolidPlaid 03:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (2nd choice: Merge) No reason has been given for deletion.  If you look at the history, all of this information originally came from the movie and TV show articles (Stargate and Stargate SG-1 respectively.  It has it's own article because it isn't clear which of the other two articles the information most belongs in.  Seeing as the information seemed to have randomly surfaced separately on two different articles, I think that (worst case scenario) it should be merged. --Roger McCoy 03:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that this article suffers from some trivia entries, but all in all, I know the producers commented on many of them in audio commentaries. The article also serves as not having to fork the same information into two separate articles (Stargate (film) and Stargate SG-1). If it wasn't for this, I'd say merge for notability reasons, but the presentation as a cross-product in IMHO best as a separate article. In the worst case, merge to both mother articles  (edit: Stargate SG-1, and link there from the movie) until someone has uncovered the audio commentaries. I'd do it myself, but unfortunately, you can't Google audio commentaries unless someone transcribed them (and there are over 160 of them, each 40 minutes long).– sgeureka t•c 11:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the producers comment on them in comment tracks on the DVDs might help with the WP:OR issue, but it does not establish notability or change the nature of the "differences" from trivial to notable. --lquilter 19:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, stylistic reasons. And if we go down the NN road - per WP:FICT: "The article is merged, in whole or in part, to another article to provide better context". I already said I'm open to merging. But I consider differences notable when they are needed to understand the bodies of fiction (4 light years versus a completely different galaxy; the last of a dying race versus hundreds of them; actor changes with completely different personalities...). This needs to be mentioned somewhere, and it is (now) already sourced. – sgeureka t•c 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The producers audio recordings are not independent reliable sources, which the general notability guidelines requires. -- Jreferee    t / c  15:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is not solely based on non-independent sources, and there its stated nowhere that articles may only consist of thirdparty sources. See my reply below your !vote. – sgeureka t•c 16:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Please see Articles for deletion/Harry Potter film/book differences (2nd nomination) for similar precedent. Chris! ct 20:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a precedent case, because there was no attempt to source those articles in three months. So I sourced all differences with independent and/or reliable sources, and moved the other instances to the talk page (if someone can source them also). I left in one fact because I know that it was said in an audio commentary, or that I read it in an interview. So OR is no longer an issue; notability possibly, but that's what merging is for. :-) – sgeureka t•c 21:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as this article appears to be cited with in-line citations throughout and is organized is a nice textual way supplemented by good images. Plus, I would think an interest in this topic exists for people wanting to reference the differences, too.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (as stand-alone article); merge content per WP:N and WP:NOT (2.9). Yes, some people will certainly want such a list/article, but that doesn't make it of encyclopedic interest. Any significant differences can and should be listed in the individual articles about the works in the discussions about intention and arc of those stories, and in the articles (there are many) dealing with Stargate canon. There is zero need for this article in wikipedia, although I'm sure it would be very useful in a Stargate-wiki. (Hey, here's one). --lquilter 19:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Any significant differences can and should be listed in the individual articles" -- Shouldn't your !vote then actually be merge? – sgeureka t•c 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "merge" we mean strip mine for notable content & redirect, sure. If by "merge" we mean, dump all the content in without close examination, no. I understand "delete" to refer to "delete as an article", not "delete or scour the content from Wikipedia", but I've clarified my bold summary in case of doubt or confusion. --lquilter 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge means leaving the edit history intact, for the editorial process or otherwise, and if it's just a preliminary redirect. Deleting means that all the "work" that has been put into this article is automatically lost because the edit history is no longer accessible. If at least some of the parts of this article are copied to one of the main articles, the edit history of the diff article has to remain intact under the GFDL. Straight-out deleting makes exactly this impossible, basically nuking the existent information from Wikipedia for the non-admin Wikipedian. – sgeureka t•c 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll try to be more precise in the future. I like edit histories & retention of content; I just also like information to be presented in the most parsimonious, intelligible, and sensible fashion. --lquilter 23:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions.   —Gavin Collins 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blogs and fan sites (e.g., What differences are there between the movie and the TV series?) are not Wikipedia reliable sources. No Wikipedia reliable source has addressed this topic. If the information was a sourced summary of a reliable source publication by someone that noted the differences between the versions of, that may make a difference since it would be a non-Wikipedian's research rather than a Wikipedia's research. As it is, this article brings together sources to create an original research comparison. To the extent it is not original research, the topic lacks reliable source material that is independent of those responsible for Stargate and thus does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Jreferee 15:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you doubt the reliability of the sources, or do you doubt that these sources establish notablity for a separate article? If it's the latter (which I hope), then per WP:FICT the outcome of this AfD should be to merge, not delete. BTW, this article does have enough independent sources (BBC, New York Times, +++) now to illustrate that there is more to this than first meets the eye. And while GateWorld is a fansite (by definition independent), it is still so reliable that it is regulary favorably mentioned in audio commentaries and producer blogs. This article in its current state completely satisfies "source-based research" as mentioned in WP:NOR, and I don't know what to do further to persuade people that this information is notable enough to be included somewhere on wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 16:47, 15 October 2007 (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.