Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics and 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 keep. Kusma (討論) 08:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Physics and Star Trek
I just transwikied this to Memory Alpha, another Wikimedia project, which I think is a more appropriate place for it than Wikipedia, a general interest encyclopedia. There's already an article at MA on "The Physics of Star Trek," which is basically a book review. I thought transwikiing the article would make for a nice complement to that article. I also transferred the talk page. If consensus is to delete on Wikipedia, I'd be happy to go back to MA and fix all the red links. Erik the Rude 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC) Erik the Rude 22:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, the majority at the AfD for "Physics and Star Wars seems to be pointing to this article as an example of how that one should be done, and even those people want to keep that poorly-written article. This one, on the other hand, is much more well-written and appears to be a topic of interest to a large audience of Wikipedia. As much as I hate the buildup of scifi cruft, this one seems like a keeper. -- H·G (words/works) 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Great article for a great franchise. Dionyseus 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There may be just one book on this topic, but the topic itself isn't fancruft, and I think it has enough general interest to keep this decent article.--Chaser T 23:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete science fiction is "fiction" so it doesn't have to obey physical laws, WOW! Next we'll have Physics and <fill in your preferred sci-fi/fantasy/horror/mystery show. Carlossuarez46 05:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Take a look at the book, which has serious scientist explaining how Star Trek could work or why certain things couldn't work. It isn't called Science fiction for nothing, there is real hard science next to the fiction, and some parts of the fiction generate the idea for real science. Did you know that scientists are experimenting with beaming? --84.184.91.94 13:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That is perfectly all right as long as it isn't original research. Uncle G 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. About as reasonable an encyclopedia article as Cryptozoology and War and Peace. Memory Alpha is the right place. -- GWO
 * Delete. Fancruft. Artw 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Ye canna change the laws of physics, yet Scotty does it every other week; yes, there's a book, but that doesn't make this topic encyclopedic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does. Uncle G 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't. The comment/response format makes it pretty obvious that this is not encyclopedic. If it looks like a trekkiesciencefaq, which it does, it falls under WP:NOT's inclusion of FAQs under "indiscriminate collection". Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The existence of sources does makes this topic suitable for an encyclopaedia article.  You are conflating "encyclopaedic" with "written in a style that Pro & con lists recommends articles not be written in".  That the article is stylistically bad does not make the subject unsuitable for an encyclopaedia article. Uncle G 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dionyseus. Topic has long been discussed and article has a reference. --JJay 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - don't see any obvious need for deletion; the physics of Star Trek is encyclopedic as many, many internet discussions seem to suggest 24.9.10.235 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * - edit done by 24.9.10.235 23:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. Should we add, for every piece of science fiction X, "X and physics"? Of course, almost every piece of science fiction is going to involve scientifically impossible/unlikely elements, scientifically possible/likely elements, and elements whose possibility depends on future physics. Elaborating on this in detail for every piece of science fiction -- or even just major ones like Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. -- is just fancruft. And if we are to have it, it does not deserve its own article. --SJK 10:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We should add them if they have been the subject of multiple independent non-trivial published works, and we should not add them if they have not (because doing so where there is no pre-existing source material would be original research). Wikipedia should reflect the subjects that exist in sources.  People have written and published non-trivial works about the physics of the Star Trek universe as compared to the physics of this one.  Therefore Wikipedia should discuss the subject.  They have not (to my knowledge) written and published such works about the physics of (say) the The Magic Goes Away universe.  Therefore Wikipedia should not have an article about physics and the The Magic Goes Away universe. Uncle G 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The subject has been discussed in multiple non-trivial published works that are independent of the authors of the universe, and the article even cites these as sources. Keep. Uncle G 12:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, and eventually merge . Science is important to science fiction (hence the "science" part) therefore it is not fancruft (a discussion of a trivial issue or one peripheral to the topic would be fancruft). A suggestion has been made on the AfD for "Physics and Star Wars to create an article on Physics and Science Fiction. Once an article like this is written then it would be appropriate to propose merging this article into it. Lurker 15:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again, y'all. I've tried to be a really good sport about this article and not mention the f#$cr^&t word or any bias for or against Star Trek.  I can't help but think that Trek gets extra-special treatment around here, and that squicks my fundamental ideas of fair play and the rule of law.  I personally don't vote to keep articles I happen to like or articles on subjects I like if they grossly violate policy or what a Wikipedia article should be.  I even transferred the article and its accompanying talk page to Memory Alpha, which is a Wikia (Wikimedia) project, and I didn't even have to do that.  NO KNOWLEDGE WILL BE LOST.  I'm starting to think that if this is a no consensus keep, it will need to go straight through AfD after a grace period of one month, and if it is a consensus keep, and I hope it's not, it will have to go to deletion review based on the flimsy evidence given in the keep votes.  Honestly, I try to be a nice, reasonable guy, but this kind of thing really makes me wonder.  The known laws of physics are do not apply in the TV shows and movies associated with Star Trek.  That's not a revelation of any kind.  Please, folks, do the right thing. Erik the Rude 11:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * the flimsy evidence given in the keep votes &mdash; The "flimsy evidence" is not flimsy at all. And it is the article itself that cites sources. Please, folks, do the right thing.  &mdash;  Keeping an article on something that has been the subject of multiple independent published works is the right thing.  Wikipedia encompasses human knowledge, and that includes human knowledge about fiction.  Uncle G 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Erik, I find your comment somewhat condescending. Why don't you argue policy and guidelines instead of telling us what you will do if this AfD doesn't go your way? The relevant guideline for closing admins says When in doubt, don't delete so I don't think the burden is on the keepers in this discussion. Imho, there's been no convincing argument to delete based on policy. The fancruft essay says that the problems are usually verifiable sources, NPOV, and avoiding OR. None of these seem to be a problem here (though I acknowledge there's not much beyond the one book). I don't think this article is any more marginal than an article on a certain cross-dressing street performer (remember?).--Chaser T 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The referenced published book seems adequately notable.  Because of the 5-8 editions, it's hard to establish an amazon.com sales rank, but 2 of the editions were ranked between 100,000 and 250,000 at the last check.  (It was also available in the last three community libraries where I looked for it — I haven't checked ourlist of library catalogs to see if the book would be notable if an article were proposed on it.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep well written. Sourced. NPOV. Agne27 03:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I didn't think that you could transwiki things to Memory Alpha, as their license is different from the GFDL.  JYolkowski // talk 22:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the article was deleted there for just that reason.--Chaser T 22:42, 19 July 2006 (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.