Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organian Peace Treaty


 * 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 Errand of Mercy. GlassCobra 20:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Organian Peace Treaty

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed prod. This Star Trek related article has absolutely no real-world notability, has been unsourced besides a single DS9 episode for 3 1/2 years now, and...well, that's it. This isn't Memory Alpha. UsaSatsui (talk) 06:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I just added two citations.Colonel Warden (talk) 08:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the subject of the article has no wide notability outside of the Star Trek universe. The sources provided are not really sufficiently independent of the subject.  Take it to Memory Alpha.  Lankiveil (talk) 09:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment You don't seem to understand the basic concept of Independent sources for which the cites provided seem perfectly adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, forgive me if I'm wrong, but one is an episode of the television series, and another is an in-universe encyclopædia written by Mike Okuda, who has worked extensively on the series. The other one is independent, but looking at the indicated page on Google Books, it doesn't seem to have anything but a brief plot summary of the episode in question, and doesn't seem to jive with the sentence that it's referencing.  Lankiveil (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment Mr Okuda's work on the series and that encyclopaedia make him an authority and so that is an excellent source.  Independence is provided by citing a second source from a person without the same associations.  Jiving and other content issues are a reason to improve rather than delete.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I apologise; there seems to be a misunderstanding here. I'm going on notability grounds here, not verifiability.  I agree that Okuda is an expert (I own the first-edition of that book myself), and the content of the article is what happened on the show.  But Okuda is not sufficiently independent in my view to establish notability.  Lankiveil (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Comment - There are plenty more sources out there - I just picked two. My work of a few minutes shows that the article is easily capable of improvement.  Per WP:NOEFFORT, AFD is not cleanup.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You picked one (Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't really count as independent). And it is a good source. Good enough for me, at least.  But I don't think one book explaining it's use as symbolism is enough to give it it's own article.  If you could find another, even one making the same argument, I'd change my vote (I can't withdraw with all those redirects down there)...in the meantime, I think one source is certainly good enough for a merge.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Errand of Mercy.   Alloranleon (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Errand of Mercy. This isn't Memory Alpha, but it couldn't hurt to redirect. -- Redfarmer (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Errand of Mercy. Plausible search term but not suitable for an independent article. Otto4711 (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have strong feelings between keep and merge but I strongly feel that refering to Mr Okuda's works as not secondary are non-productive.  Are we saying that to be notable in regards to a fictional work it has to be disuussed in a book that's not about the fictional work?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be secondary, but I'm not sure how a Star Trek Encyclopedia can establish real-word notability (and in fact, the manner in how it is used doesn't.) --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The heart of WP:N and the very term "Notability" is that it's "worthy of notice". If something occurs in a show, and is then discussed an a book, distributed by a major publisher, ans available in bookstores nation/world wide, i see that as notable regardless if the book is named "Star Trek Encyclopedia".--Cube lurker (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Being covered in a work that is exclusively about a single topic doesn't really count in my eyes.  Unless this treaty is very significant in Star Trek, like the Prime Directive it should not have an article.  Now, if there's more than a passing mention of this treaty, if the Encyclopedia goes on for 2 or 3 paragraphs about this particular treaty and it's importance to Star Trek and it's universe, that's a different story. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mike's book is an authorized adjunct to the series by one of the Trek universe's creators. It's not an independent source. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Highly notable event in highly notable fictional universe. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * sadly, Redirect to Errand of Mercy. This was supposedly an event of great importance but the series had to largely ignore it later due to its constraints on storylines, so it never gained wider significance. A trivial mention isn't enough for real-world relevance, and a branded encyclopedia is not independent enough for notability. --Dhartung | Talk 08:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect. No real world notability. --Jack Merridew 13:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There are times when the original content is so bad or inappropriate that it should be deleted before redirection. I don't think this is one of those times. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect - To Errand of Mercy, not notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Errand of Mercy the only episode where this is a major plot point. There may be a little content to merge but not much I would think.  Eluchil404 (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Khitomer Accords and Treaty of Algeron to new List of treaties in Star Trek. Khitomer Accords has some notability but would benefit from additional context. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Errand of Mercy. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:29, 8 January 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.