Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klingon culture


 * 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, as limited policy-related issues with the article seem to have been brought up. Please continue merge/redirect discussion on article talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Klingon culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is an embarrassing, over-detailed article about a fictional world, just waiting to be a wikigroan (if it isn't already). It should be merged into klingon as a paragraph if not deleted outright. Compare for example Afrikaner culture. That's right, it doesn't exist. It's a subsection of Afrikaner, which is appropriate. --Slashme (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This belongs on a fan site, not an encyclopedia. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ugh. This article looks like it's been the merge repository for a bunch of cruft that's never been cleaned up. I suspect some of this content should be merged to Klingon, but I'm having a hard time identifying anything specific. It's really hard, because the Klingon article has become pretty good; this content here would be a pretty ugly smudge. I'm whacking at it piecemeal now, but really I don't see anything that isn't already sufficiently covered in Klingon (e.g. the religious stuff) or the purely inconsequential (e.g. sexuality). Inclined toward redirect, with possible, extremely limited merge. --EEMIV (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable element of a HUGE fictional franchise. Article currently has at least two third party RS'es.  Having said that, I have no objection to appropriate trimming and/or merging to Klingon if the result doesn't lose any worthwhile (non-OR, etc.) content. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete our Klingon article is actually very good, and I think we'd be doing a disservice to that article and its editors by foisting this on them via merge. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Expand Culture section in Klingon article if necessary. Slighty OT now but I think Klingon law should be cleaned up and merged into Klingon. Mattg82 (talk) 22:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Selective merge to Klingon. Pointlessly replicates much of the in-universe content in the main article, so there won't be much to merge. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral While I agree that such a subject would hardly ever make a feasible article on Wikipedia without breaking WP:OR, WP:POV and so on, I do think it could potentially become a valid sub-topic. The Klingon culture is exceptionally popular, more so than any other in the Star Trek universe I suspect, and is emulated or investigated all over the world. SGGH ping! 22:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Extensive discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * comment Apart from Cirts argument above I don't see much policy based argumentation here. Some of you even admit that the article is too big to merge into the culture section of Klingon - this should be a hint that a sinout article on the topic is warranted. Now I agree that the article is of low quality and written in an in universe perspective - these are however not arguments for deletion, but arguments for improval. One possible argument towards deletion could be the sources - it is clearly undersourced and I have my doubts about the reliability of some of the sources it does have. ·Maunus· ƛ · 09:01, 29 December 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.