Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red matter (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   redirect to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. The content of this article has already been merged. Therefore, a redirect must be kept to remain in compliance with the GFDL. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Red matter (Star Trek)

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

Term is completely in-universe WP:OR for a substance mentioned twice. Highly dubious that suitable sources will found. Put this on the Star Trek wiki and leave it there. Loodog (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Merge to some relevant startrek article about star trek stuff. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Frag as pointless outside of Star Trek film article. There just aren't reliable sources for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs  (talk • contribs)
 * Delete . No significance outside of the film, whose plot summary adequately describes its function. Might be worth redirecting red matter (which redirects here) to Star Trek (film) though. BryanG (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Switch to merge with the List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles that apparently exists... fits there nicely, and it seems like a reasonable solution to the multiple appearances problem. BryanG (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge; but it appears in the film and in the comics. Possibly merge to a new article anomolous matter (Star Trek), taking this and the Star Trek material from dark matter in fiction, and other anomolous matter and strange matter from Star Trek.  Feh.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Assimilate what little of it is relevant into Star Trek (film) and Star Trek: Countdown. John Darrow (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Beam it up into some broader article about this sort of thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the film article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little more than a plot device in the new film, and not something you could reasonably write an article about. PC78 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP and/or MERGE; be realistic, this is star trek, it ain't gonna go away! :P  there must be someplace in the trek stuff where we can add this, if we don't want an separate article about it. there is also a considerable likelihood that in the future "red matter" will turn up more often in trek...  Why don't we just refer this to the people who specialize in trek on wikipedia? they would have a better idea how to assimilate the material, than non-specialist wikipedians (myself included). Lx 121 (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That's what the Star Trek wiki is for.--Loodog (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't note the alteration yourself, or use strikethrus, i wish to note, for the record, that you have moderated the tone of your preceeding comment considerably, since your first posted it. Lx 121 (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm...yeah, "Put this on the Star Trek wiki". Up there from the start, champ.--Loodog (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * i apologize to loodog, you posted effectively the same comment twice, only the second time you used sarcasm; i can now see the repeated comment, sarcasm intact, a few lines down. i humbly apologize for suggesting that you might have moderated your tone. i was confused by the repetition. XD Lx 121 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge with the film article. There just isn't enough information about red matter for an entire article. ChadyWadyTalk 10:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChadyWady (talk • contribs)


 * Delete it's pure plot muguffin with no real world notability (and I'd consider my self a trek "specalist"). --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Damnit Jim, I'm an inclusionist, not a deletionist! –xeno talk 13:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC) merge per Erik9
 * List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. If it needs more space, it could also fit in at List of Star Trek materials. –xeno talk 05:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete what information exists other than the two minutes is appears in the new film. It makes a black hole, is all that can be said, and what would be the point of a merge other than to bloat up an already bloated article with OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * actually it appears as a story element in the comic series preceeding the new film. i'm not a very close follower of trek, but i am a writer; expect red matter to turn up again, like it or not.  don't we have some kind of "collection" pages for trek paraphernallia? a list of trekstuff that this would fit on? Lx 121 (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment What, you mean like a Star Trek wiki or something?--Loodog (talk) 13:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * no, i mean that realistically, it's a part of the trek universe, likely to be expanded upon. there is a strong group of trekkies working on here, i don't think it's smart to try & pick a fight; especially when there are logical places for the content to go Lx 121 (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm as much a fan as anyone here; doesn't mean I can't see the difference between what's appropriate for wikipedia and what's appropriate for memory-alpha.org.--Loodog (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal on this page is to either keep it; a position I cannot support as there is a lack of third party sources, or delete it. To merge the meagre information to the main film article would not be a help, even if it does turn up in future non-canon literature, as there would still only be in universe references for it. And I don't know what you mean by "there is a strong group of trekkies working on here, i don't think it's smart to try & pick a fight". Not wanting to out myself but i've seen the film four times, that does not mean that my view is any more valid, in fact Wikipedia is not written for Trekkies. Although I would support the information in this article being moved to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles, then this being a redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, "redirect", "merge", and "transwiki" are all considered valid results for AfDs, not just "keep", "delete", and (of course) "no consensus". John Darrow (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations, you failed to understand my post. The actual verifiable information is so small that merge and transwiki are meaningless, and I can't vote "no consensus". Either the article needs to be kept, deleted or the information moved and this page becomes a redirect. The last option being the best option available. But even with a redirect the actual verifiable information on this page amounts to "red matter makes black holes", anything else is original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles and mention Star Trek: Countdown and Star Trek (film) as the sources with a brief description that does not entail a whole article at this point. — Erik (talk • contrib) 13:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this article on a fictional substance that has no independent reliable coverage that would make it notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC), with surges up to the 7-800 range
 * Beam whatever's relevent to the Star Trek Movie, and lock phasers on the rest of the article.Tc.bongers (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete My nomination. There's nothing in this article worth merging.  To stay anywhere on wikipedia (not just this article), information has to be sourced, and not viewer/fan WP:OR.--Loodog (talk) 14:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not have to cast a !vote when you are the nominator. Additionally, WP:OR does not apply here as a reason to delete.  This plot device exists unquestionably; it is a matter of determining if it is notable enough to warrant its own article.  Sentences like "reminiscent of the mythical red mercury, purported to be necessary for the construction of nuclear weapons" are original research and should be removed, but this does not mean that the topic itself is original research. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 17:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My vote is to distinguish from "merge", which I don't think was obvious from my nomination. According to WP:GNG, notability is determined by coverage in sources. My comment that this is WP:OR is not that it should be deleted because it contains OR, but because the article is solely built upon OR, and not any such sources.--Loodog (talk) 20:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Red matter exists as a particular topic, but the question is if it is a topic befitting Wikipedia's notability standards.  (The answer is no.)  The article does contain original research, but the topic itself is definitely not original research.  It is indisputable that red matter exists as a fictional topic, but per WP:WAF, fictional topics require real-world context.  I agree with you about the lack of such context, hence my support to merge.  I disagree with how you are applying WP:OR here. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has no sources. It is a repository for WP:OR and built solely upon OR.  If a bucket is built of out shit and only collects shit, it's a shitbucket, regardless of its theoretical ability to hold other substances.--Loodog (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Plenty of sources here. This even explores the impact of red matter.  (Which should go on the Star Trek film article, anyway.)  Fictional topics are often repositories for original research, but this does not mean they cannot be converted into encyclopedic articles.  Red matter is something frequently mentioned in the media but only addressed as a plot device with not enough real-world context to substantiate it as a stand-alone topic.  Shit buckets can be cleaned out (very well, I hope) and filled with useful substance or just recycled into something to use in other items (tying into my aforementioned merge). — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure which links you're talking about. None of them say anything about it other than its name.  The string theorist they talk to completely ignores the phrase "red matter" and only talks about causes as known in the real world.  The interviewer says "red matter can cause black holes", but this much is obvious from the movie plot.  You're not going to get anything more than that from anyone, meaning that to fill this thing to article length requires OR (e.g. you can see because things get sucked in that the red matter must increase the mass of what its injected into.)--Loodog (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * funny i used the same links & had no trouble finding multiple instances of references to red matter. Lx 121 (talk)
 * Whether red matter was mentioned in the links was not what was being debated.--Loodog (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to either the film article or the "list of fictional particles and atoms etc." article which I understand exists somewhere. SGGH ping! 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This page shouldn't be deleted. It held a major purpose in the movie and needs to have a page about it. Spock5709
 * And your username shows how unbiased you are. That it "held a major purpose" is not a reason to keep. Is the article covering a notable item, and notable in the real world, not in a Star Trek film. Plus your assertions that it "needs to have a page about it" is not backed up by any policy. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Applying the same logic, let's create an article about Smiley's burgers because it hols a major purpose in American Beauty, or let's create an article about the neural inhibitor chip in Spiderman 2 because it too holds a major purpose. Wikipedia is not a repository of plot devices in movies.--Loodog (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't do better than repeat Loodog's words, "Wikipedia is not a repository of plot devices in movies." (Loved the movie, by the way.) Languagehat (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Or Merge into the movie article. One successful reboot movie does not Trek canon make. (Sounds worse than a McDune book.) --SandChigger (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

internal wikipedia link, 2009"]] XD Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, yeah & here comes that war i've been trying to avoid starting... :P wp practice of longstanding has been to allow articles about fictional topics as long as: 1. it is clearly identified as fiction. 2. the fiction in question is of sufficient notability. 3. the coverage doesn't get overcrowed; i.e.:  compile smaller articles into groupings, such as: star trek/science/fictional types of matter.  if we want to go puritannical, as per loodog's stated ideology, there are a few hundred thousand articles on wikip that need to go.  do you really want to get into that?  do you really want to get into an edit war with all the people who have put in the effort to create & maintain them?  personally, i think "red matter" should probably be compiled into a larger article on star trek_whatever; although jamming it into the movie article probably isn't sufficient, as the stuff already turns up elsewhere in trek, & that trend is likely to continue & increase.  what i don't want to do, is heat things up into the usual edit wars over how to treat fiction on wikip.  there are a large group of editors on here who care about & work on the trek material; they deserve respect for their efforts.  as a general policy, it might be a good idea to refer debates on "specialist" subjects, to the people who actually know something about it; half the people commenting here don't even know that "red matter" appears in trek, outside the movie. Lx 121 (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a WP:OSE argument, so it has no weight.--Loodog (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Double-Sorry no, you're reading it wrong; that's an arguement for "hey-ho, let the fun begin!"  i can think of 50-100 articles that should be prodded on your rationale, just of the top of my head; do you really want to start an edit war on that scale?  also, ose is a legitimate arguement when it illustrates an established practice or policy.  we allow articles on fictional subjects, as per the conditions identified above.  if this piece meets those conditions & the other wp criteria for inclusion, it should be kept/merged/whatever; whether u like it or not.  if you want to prodall simillar articles; i wish you well with that... Lx 121 (talk) 06:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoa.. easy there. "Start an edit war on that scale"?  No one's talking about intrawikipedian battlefields.  Put the axe down.--Loodog (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * no, you just want to have your way, & have everyone agree with you. you are trying to impose your personal preferences here, disregarding established practices when it comes to the treatment of fictional material.  the fact that a large number of other wikipedians, who work on the trek stuff, might disagree with you, is irrelevant.  also, your original rationale of WP:OR is absurd.  it's in the movie & the comic series, & the novelization, not to mention endless reviews & discussions of same.  those don't count as references? Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On the matter of consequences to other articles. The place to discuss other articles is on those pages, not here.  This discussion only concerns "Red Matter".  Pointing to other seemingly lesser worthy articles that continue to exist runs counter to WP:OSE.  If this article merits existence, its notability must be made on its own merits, i.e.  "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."  This is requirement is independent of other WP articles.--Loodog (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, but precedent & established practice is relevant too; we allow articles on fictional topics according to the terms defined far up in this overlong dialogue. you are wikilawyering with technicalities, notability is established; it's a major plot device in the film, & a key story element in the comics, looking at in in-universe for a minute:  it was used to destroy the planet vulcan; wait a year & it will be all over trek.  wanna make a bet on whether or not i'm right about that? :P  each article stands or falls on it's own, but the precedents & practices established are relevant.  if this goes, based on your arguements, there's a lot of other cruft that needs to go too.  the really absurd thing here is that i'm wasting my time on this & i don't give a crap about star trek; i just dislike the principle you're arguing on & the precedent you're trying to establish; i also don't like the degree of disregard being shown for other people's work.  you are trying to redefine the way fictional material is treated on wikipedia, whether you realize it or not.  i'm not quite sure if you've figured out that the same reasoning & same arguements could likely be used to afd some of the things you care about on wikip.  also i would like to nominate your above comment for [["use of the longest phrase in an
 * I suggest you read Pokémon test, if you'd like to understand why I'm not on a crusade to redefine the entirety of wikipedia.--Loodog (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Food for Thought:  according to this tracker tool:  http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Red_matter_%28Star_Trek%29 http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Red_matter the red matter article is averaging better than 2000 hits per day (trackers counts the 2 different  article titles separately); not bad for something that was just created.  that's relevant & germane to this discussion, i think, at least in that it demonstrates that there are people who want to know about this subject. Lx 121 (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No food for thought. AfD nominations have the effect of driving up traffic to all articles. AFD's that involve things (i.e. "Star Trek") that have rabid fanbases behind them, even more so.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ummm, no i'm sorry, but 2000+ hits per day is not "afd traffic". if that were the case, then this debate would be flooded with keep votes.  the people who are  looking up this page are, by & large, ordinary readers who don't know, or care about internal wikibickerings Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Send it through a black hole to List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. Throwaway plot element, no wide notability.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Redirect to film article. Other than the in-film references, there is nothing else that can be reliably sourced on this "matter". One or two lines in the film article is all this needs (or deserves) at this time. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That was terrible. Your pun privileges are hereby revoked.--Loodog (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Memory Alpha and merge to Star Trek (film) and Star Trek: Countdown if applicable. —Admiral Norton (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing worth keeping here that isn't already in the article for the film itself. Skyraider (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles; not enough info. to warrant its own article right now. An entry at the aforementioned article seems like a good fit. Steve  T • C 21:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since i seem to be spending far more time & effort on this than i ever intended, i want to be clear that i'm in favour of merging with the above mentioned, it certainly should be included on the list (tho i'm surprised if there is no "trek only" page of same). after the dust settles here, i'm thinking of picking a fight on that article page about what to do in instances of the same name being used in different fictions. lol  ...i also think the article on red matter is likely to re-materialize, given the demand for it (2000+ hits per day), & the overwhelming likelihood that the stuff is going to turn up again in trek, repeatedly.  for one thing, every time the subject of the vulcans & their destroyed planet comes up, red matter is going to be mentioned.  would anyone here care to afd the death star? or skynet? or the vogons? or that giant planet-eating guy in the chair, in the marvel universe? :P  Lx 121 (talk) 11:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * upon reflection, & counting up the time i've spent on this debate, i think i'm going to quit now, & just go add red matter to the 2 suggested pages, since it clearly belongs there. if the article does get deleted, might i suggest putting up a redirect to the trek materials page? Lx 121 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * someone beat me to it on the fictional matter page. thanks @ User:Xeno; you are a wiser being than i; both for the work & for not getting entangled in here! ha Lx 121 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Star Trek (film), or maaaaaybe to J. J. Abrams (red spheres are a motif of his). Regardless: it's a non-notable MacGuffin. --EEMIV (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable and way too much uncited speculation. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Red Matter (star trek) is not a valid search term, and Red Metter on it's own is way too generic to redirect to any specific Trek or fictional science article. Let's get serious here, this is not Memory Alpha, nobody is going to be looking here for Red Matter without knowing that it relates 'to that recent Start Trek' movie and thus having a perfectly obvious place to look for details about it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because no one might ever think red matter actually exists and just type red matter into the search box? Please don't assume anything of our readers. –xeno talk 22:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Either way, moot. The most obvious search term would be Red matter, which directs here now, and if we delete this article, would certainly direct to Star Trek (film) anyway.--Loodog (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles be a better target? –xeno talk 23:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. That's even better.  Either way, "red matter", which is the most likely search term, will stay useful.--Loodog (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mick's comment above seems to seek the outright deletion of the page altogether in any form. –xeno <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 23:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If I know nothing of Star Trek, but for some reason I am typing in Red Matter, the fact I see no page on Wikipedia gives me my answer that it doesn't exist. Redirecting me to a fictional list of elements telling me it was made up for Star Trek won't help me at all. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But that would be the wrong answer, because red matter does exist...in a fictional universe. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b> <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete because purple monkey dishwasher. I mean, seriously, aren't the reasons obvious? JuJube (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Sadly, you have to give a reason, no matter how obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 20 May 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.