Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanoprobe (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   no consensus. Shereth 19:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Nanoprobe (Star Trek)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simple a repetition of various plot points from Star Trek media articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Totally in-universe. Wikipdia is not a mirror site for original research at Memory-Alpha. Edison (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep sigh again...
 * http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=ct20020822112331465S5262447&set_id=1
 * http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220578.200-is-there-anybody-out-there-.html
 * http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/252558
 * And that's just threedarn solid science stories. There is plenty of other sources in reviews, games, in-world encyclopedias etc.  Heck, those were in the first page of a news search. Hobit (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * NO, you see, that information would go in an article on actual nanoprobes, the subject of this article is Nanoprobes in star trek, how they were concieved, who concieved them, and what people thought about the technology in the SHOW. All this stuff you mentioned is either about ACTUAL nanoprobes, or is fan stuff that has nothing to do with the information we need to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Each of these articles referred to Star Trek nanoprobes, and generally the in the lede (and the rest of the article too). I'd strongly suggest that anyone else commenting on this article read these first...  Hobit (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, each of these articles mentions the work "Star Trek" in the lead paragraph of the story, that is all. Nothing else is said, so none of these show notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is factually incorrect. Please read/search the stories before making such statements. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just double checked, and my statements are 100% accurate, Star Trek is mentioned only in passing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The "in passing" part is certain a matter of opinion (and one I disagree with). But "each of these articles mentions the work "Star Trek" in the lead paragraph of the story, that is all" is factually untrue. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They do not demonstrate any notability, and do not justify a whole article about Nanoprobes in Star Trek. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Hobit's sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of citations to reliable sources that establish real-world notability. Redirect to Borg (Star Trek). --EEMIV (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep . sufficient sources. That's all that ought to need be said, but the nom of articles as lacking real world relevance together with the refusal to withdraw it when t hey are shown is beginnig to look a little pointy. Is the objection to this article, or is it a desire to decrease the coverage of the subject more generally?  DGG (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What you have just said is outrageous. The articles presented are completely empty of content that relates to this article, or supports its notability. The amazing thing is that you would vote keep in this instance. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well,  I see the first ref alone  specifically making the analogy: "In theory the sensors are similar to the Borg nanoprobes implanted in Star Trek: Voyager character Seven of Nine." attributed to AP.  I consider that if AP writes this way and expects the description to be meaningful, it means that the nature of this is generally known and  recognized as important in the RW. DGG (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * delete not notable enough, this belongs on tekkipedia, it has a great place there, although if a significant amount of sources is found then logically this would be a keep. do real nanoprobes exist? that would be truly notable for me, are they theorized? undergoing research?MY♥IN chile 00:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit and DGG. AfD is not clean-up nor is wikipedia a battleground even though we do write articles on games and sci-fi subjects which are battle-related. AfD's take time and energy away from actually building articles, it seems a quick check would have revealed reliable sources were available. Banj e  b oi   00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Nanotechnology in fiction and Borg (Star Trek). Not enough notability to stand on its own. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Among the sources mentioned, the first and the last are the only ones to mention the subject and do so in literally one sentence. The second mentions star trek by way of colloquially introducing the subject of space and then proceeds to discuss Von Neumann probes, a rather different concept than what the article covers entirely.  Here is the text we mean to anchor this article with:

"Kids are familiar with nanotechnology from Star Trek, where the Borg, an evil alien race, transforms humans into cyborgs using a nanoprobe injection."

- Toronto Star

"In theory the sensors are similar to the Borg nanoprobes implanted in Star Trek: Voyager character Seven of Nine."

- AP


 * There simply isn't enough there that actually refers to the subject. How are we to write an encyclopedia article from that?  How are we to treat that as anything other than a passing allusion?  I don't feel that is singificant coverage as required by the general notability guidelines.  Delete it. Protonk (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Protonk's analysis. Passing mention in, at best, an article or two. My own searches show that the vast majority of the ghits are non-reliable fansites, wikis, and the like. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Voted above, expansion of keep vote The Star Trek nanoprobes are amongst the first, if not the first widely propagated use of nanotechnology in fiction and many item, like cell phones, that we take for granted were first widely envisioned by Star Trek - including their progressive use of spandex (attempt at humor there) - and nanogenes, nanites, nanobots, nanomachine, nanorobots are increasingly used in sci-fi and mainstream shows and movies. Nanorobot is the correct technical term in the nonfictional context of serious engineering studies and I find it easy to believe that all sorts of variations were used by not only those within the original show but certainly those outside the writers and producers to describe the technology they were envisioning. We've done a bit of webtrawling but we all know that only gets you what Google sees, not what's actually there. This article needs to be improved. Cite the episodes the technology was first used in a significant way and bridge that to he current scientific field of nanotechnology. That a television show was doing this seems plenty notable - the sources are out there. You might try the Encyclopedia of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.  Banj e  b oi   10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't realize I had !voted above. Banj e  b oi   10:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking the second keep so the !vote only gets counted once. Feel free to switch which one is struck or reword without a bold !vote.  Just making it clearer for someone scanning since anyone counting !votes would've ended up with two of yours. Vickser (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion, the above articles clearly show that the term is notable in the real world. There are plenty of sources in News and books that aren't cited above. The article itself can be written based on not only these sources, but also non-independent sources such as the various Star Trek encyclopedias which have plenty of information. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:N and WP:V. A significant though minor element of an important fictional media franchise.  Google books search for the term +nanoprobe +borg shows more than 50 books, and that's just one quick search.  The article needs much improvement, especially, it needs references.  But that's not a reason to delete, it's a reason to improve.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I read over this debate and looked at the sources pretty closely. The ones linked by Hobit simply don't show notability to me.  The New Scientist article shouldn't even be on that list as the Star Trek reference in it is not even about nanotechnology: "According to this hypothesis, emerging civilisations such as ours are cordoned off by star-faring civilisations of the Galaxy as part of a Star Trek-like non-interference policy."   The Star saying that kids may know nanotechnology from Star Trek is so passing a mention that we couldn't use it as an article source since it doesn't say anything.  The only of those three articles that's viable is the IOL one, but there's simply not enough there to prove notability.  The google books search provided by Jack-A-Hole seemed to offer a bit more, but the references all seemed to belong in either nanotechnology in fiction or Borg (Star Trek).  There's nothing I can see here that merits a separate article. Vickser (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Borg. Not notable of itself. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 15 August 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.