Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night Terrors (Star Trek: The Next Generation)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   23:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Night Terrors (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This episode isn't notable. Having been insufficiently referenced for almost four years, it likely never will. This was de-PROD'd without valid rationale so we can have the discussion here. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 22:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Was able to very quickly find and add sources for this well known episode of an extremely popular TV series. This AFD seems unlikely to see success. Artw (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article lacks a sufficient amount of reliable sources. It fails to meet the standards at Notability. The Google search results are sparse which indicates that this was not a particularly popular/acclaimed episode even after four years. I found no awards given to this episode. The best argument for a verdict of "keep" is that Wikipedia attracts the type of editors/audience that are Star Trek fans so an argument of "useful content" could be made. desmay (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow. That's kind of weird, insulting and innacurate in pretty much every regard. Artw (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing insulting about Desmay's comments. Further, the sources you added are questionable and I don't think they connote notability. Please try to not be a partisan about this. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with you on multiple counts there, especially regarding the sources and the tone of Desmays comments. Both your comments, TBH. Artw (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's more sourced information in this article than in the other Star Trek: The Next Generation episode articles if you follow the chronology links in the infobox. Some only list the DVD as the sole source. The TV series is notable and readers may want synopsis of plots of episodes. Although somebody might want to find out what the correct spelling of the other ship in the synopsis is, it's spelled three different ways in the article. Libertybison (talk) 06:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've made a number of improvements to the article and removed the refimprove and all plot templates as I believe those to no longer be issues (though the new Production and Reception sections could do with expansion). Currently there are no references cited in the Plot Summary section, I believe the AV Club and Tor.com refs more than cover that territory so I did't want to clutter it up. FWIW those two refs should be sufficient to pass WP:GNG, the book refs contributing also to some degree though obviously with reference works it's borderline territory. Artw (talk) 06:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems all ST:TNG episodes are notable. Improvements are well done. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I see independent sources mentioning the episode. The episode is part of a noteworthy series which is part of a noteworthy franchise.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note that the specific notability of this episode is that it is bad. Widely considered bad. Like, 5 worst Star Trek TNG episodes, bad. For a series still as widely viewed as Star Trek TNG, that's it's own category of notability not yet included in the guidelines.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So if there isn't a notability guideline that includes this episode, then why would you argue that it should be kept? Do you think your opinion is allowed in place of consensus? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the notability of the episode is established by independent secondary sources. That qualifies it for inclusion. What's notable about the notability is that the episode is notable for, well, sucking.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. All episodes of the major Star Trek franchises are inherently notable and have been recognized as such for a very long time. It is unhelpful to squander the community's most precious resource, which is the time and energy of its members, on this sort of nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Might be worth encouraging editors on one of the SF or TV related projects to go through and add a couple of refs to each of them anyway though, if only to avoid similar doomed AFDs from sloppy deletionists who don't perform WP:BEFORE. Since in every case they are going to be the subject of multiple reviews, recaps and guidebook entries it shouldn't be too hard. Artw (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (this is not me volunteering.) Artw (talk) 23:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am neither sloppy not a deletionist. I think we have a real problem. True, I expected some Trekkers to show up but I underestimated the chances an ILIKEIT argument would be espoused by editors that should know better. I'm dispassionately applying the notability criteria. You think all these episodes are notable because there's fan material published? Get consensus to change WP:TVSHOW. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, TBH I was thinking more in general than thinking of you in particular, but you did pretty plainly fire off a WP:IDONTLIKEIT AFD without doing a proper WP:BEFORE and now, instead of doing the proper thing and withdrawing it you're trying to front out some weird case that AV Club and Tor.com aren't proper sources. That's plainly not going to work, so I suggest you save everyone some time and withdraw your nom. Artw (talk) 23:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * First, WP:WDAFD doesn't allow withdrawal once someone else has supported deletion. Second, AV Club and Tor.com aren't much better than fanzines. I might allow them as sources to back up material in an article but I don't think they connote notability. In any endeavor you'll have fan media that publishes about a niche interest. While I know editors prefer the absolutely loosest definition of WP:GNG, I don't. I did the BEFORE search and I continue to believe this episode isn't notable. I wouldn't have nominated it if I had a question in my mind about deletion policy. The fact that this fan material exists at Memory Alpha makes me question why fans are so dead-set about maintaining it here. In closing, I'll define for myself what "the proper thing" is. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW Both of those are paying markets, not fanzines. Artw (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – Even when we concede that not all Star Trek episodes are inherently notable, it's sort of inconceivable that any of them would actually fail GNG. This particular episode has been reviewed by numerous major entertainment websites, discussed at length in credibly published TNG and sci-fi reference books, and apparently at least cited in one psychiatry journal article (I can't see beyond the Google Scholar snippet). Clearly notable by our standards. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

"A somewhat better McGuffin, and quite similar, is the episode “Night Terrors” in The Next Generation series, which also has an external influence from a “massive fissure” called “Tycan’s Rift” that has caused the crew of another starship, the Brittain, to kill one another. It begins to cause hallucinations in First Officer Riker, paranoid jealousy in Chief Miles, poor concentration and memory for words in Dr. Beverly Crusher, and fear in Worf and Captain Picard. Dr. Crusher figures out that none of the crew is experiencing REM sleep except the Betazoid empathic therapist Deanna Troi, who is tuned into the surviving, “catatonic” Brittain crew member and is having troubling, vivid dreams of a voice metaphorically telling the crew to leave the binary star system via “one moon circling,” which they deduce refers to the hydrogen atom. This voice comes from another, alien ship trapped on the other side of the rift. Troi must communicate by “directed dreaming” so they can cooperate to free both ships. The crew vents hydrogen, which the other ship uses to explode the fissure, and both ships escape the rift with its more or less accurate effects of REM deprivation syndrome. The McGuffin here is more effective, perhaps because most people have experienced waking dream intrusion because of missing REM sleep."


 * I'm still not seeing GNG. It's a plot summary from someone that consulted on the episode and it's on the subject of using psychology for a premise. It's a mention, not a discussion. The article discusses a dozen episodes across three or four series. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know; thank you for posting that here for review. I agree the source by itself isn't very strong since there's no new analysis or commentary of the episode taking place. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The reviews of the episode in the Reception section show that it passes WP:GNG.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep inherently notable. sufficient coverage per se. Dloh cierekim  09:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Covered enough to pass GNG --Kostas20142 (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2017 (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.