Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galactic quadrant (Star Trek)


 * 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 List of Star Trek regions of space. Content can be merged from history.  Sandstein  08:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Galactic quadrant (Star Trek)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure fancruft, only sourced to primary, Star Trek based books/media, but not notable outside of that except as throwaway terms. Belongs in Wikia rather than Wikipedia. Also covered in List of Star Trek regions of space. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 00:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Basically a contradictory mish-mosh of in-universe detail, details which the shows' producers couldn't bother to keep straight and which have no notability/importance outside of that. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge It's not difficult to find sources such as Star Trek - The Americanization of Space or The Star Trek Encyclopedia and there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Possible merge targets include Galactic_quadrant and List of Star Trek regions of space and merge is preferable per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that those sources are basically in-universe, and don't demonstrate that anyone OUTSIDE of unierse-building Star Trek fans knows about or cares about this fancruft. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no question that this meets WP:Notable. Time and time again people have tried to attack articles that satisfy WP:Notable by trying to ignore or exclude so-called "in-universe" sources. Well, by that logic, we'll never have a Wikipedia article on the Universe or the Planet Earth as all sources are from within our planet. In any case, if you want a non-universe source, look no further than File:Galactic Quadrant Star Trek.png, which is based on a map produced by the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey, which, for fun, plotted various Star Trek civilizations and the Star Trek Galactic quadrants on their star map. I have seen countless non-Star Trek films/TV shows which may use the term "Alpha quadrant" as a nod to Star Trek in a similar manner. Finally, the simple fact that this article is available in over a dozen different languages demonstrates that it is inherently notable. It would be ridiculous for an article to be available in so many languages but not in English. — Code  Hydro  12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your form of logic is a rather bizarre misuse of the term "in-universe". To help you out:
 * An in-universe perspective describes the narrative (or a fictional element of the narrative, such as characters, places, groups, and lore) from the vantage of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article. Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include unverifiable original research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be[emphasis added].
 * If the only evidence you're providing for "galactic quadrants" being noticed OUTSIDE of Star Trek fandom is an explicitly "for fun" (your term) reference to Star Trek on a map, then you're making my case for me. --Calton | Talk 17:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we really comparing the actual UNIVERSE, REAL LIFE to a fictional concept and using that to negate the very concept of "in-universe sources"? I think you might need to get a reality check.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The comment about in-universe was made in jest. In any case, you are choosing to ignoring the single most compelling argument is the fact that the Star Trek Galactic Quadrant has dedicated articles in over a dozen language Wikipedias. This by itself shows notability, and again, it would be absurd for something to appear in so many languages but not English. — Code  Hydro  12:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, no it doesn't. In fact that's the very definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The other language Wikipedias tend to be far more lenient about fancruft since there are simply less people to patrol them and source them. There is nothing odd about an article being deleted in English as it likely means the others should be deleted but haven't yet.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space. An unjustified spin-out and a gross failure of WP:WAF.  No need to delete the history, it could be useful in selective merging back.  Anyone interested in coverage if this in-universe fiction should go to http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe this used to be a cleaner article but at some point, looking at the Talk:Galactic quadrant (Star Trek), another article was merged into it haphazardly which caused it to become cluttered the way it is today. It needs to be cleaned up and re-organized. I think this is too influential a concept in science fiction to be turned into a mere item on a list. — Code  Hydro  12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note I added a new section Galactic_quadrant_(Star_Trek). I only spent 20 minutes. I'm sure it can be fleshed out more. — Code  Hydro  13:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first claim, that it became a meme, has no proof. Just being placed on a shirt does not make something a meme, it has to actually have popularity notable enough to mention in the press, which it very likely doesn't. The second one is a contributor written article, meaning it's not a reliable source. The third isn't even related to quadrants used in Star Trek. The fourth is a single quote from a show, which is pure trivia. None of the added items count towards the article's notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We are just skimming the surface. I added yet another section Galactic_quadrant_(Star_Trek), which shows the influence on science fiction literature — Code  Hydro  17:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:NOR. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space. Plausible search term, but no independent notability. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Transport to List_of_Star_Trek_regions_of_space, leaving an ion trail behind. Energize.  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Phase modulation with the framistat will mask the ion trail. Sheesh. Did you even go to Starfleet Academy? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2018 (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.