Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resistance is futile (2 nomination)


 * 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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Resistance is futile
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

While trying to improve this rather pitiful article about a quite famous phrase it came to my surprise that I failed to find any sources which discuss the phrase in a reasonably scholarly way. At best, only the source of the catchphrase is mentioned. As a result, when original research removed, the article is nothing but a dicdef plus a bunch of citations from primary sources. The previous nomination ended in "keep", but none of the keeper's arguments were based on wikipedia policy. "A known and notable phrase", "Very culturally significant" - these arguments work well to transwiki to wiktionary and wikiquote (if missing) and merge in Borg (Star Trek). I understand that that this nom will cause the indignation from trekkies, sorry. - Altenmann >t 02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another possibility would be redirecting to the Borg (Star Trek) page.--76.66.188.130 (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I hate to do this since I expected to vote delete before reading the article. However the expression has a life of its own and the sourcing is good enough for a pop-culture article that will hurt or offend no one and will be of interest to some. I am sure there are people who want to know more about this expression. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- probably could use a re-write, but it serves us better to have the article, and have it here, as opposed to deletion or trans-wiki. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the article in its current form isn't even that bad. Sure it could be improved, and it most certainly will be, but I don't see any justification for deletion. Handschuh-talk to me 06:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Please understand me correctly: I am a huge scifi fan, I understand the cultural value of the phrase and had all intentions to expand the article. However during search, to my disappointment, I came to conclusion that there are to reliable sources available to write a decent article. - Altenmann >t 09:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I am not a trekker but found this article useful, since I wasn't already familiar with it's content. I wondered where the phrase came from and now I feel somewhat enlightened. I appreciated the details. Best regards. -Anonymous, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.51.22 (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — 87.227.51.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Merge and Redirect to Borg (Star Trek), where instances might be better handled in a footnote rather than article body, and the contextual statements aren't really needed. I like ST too, but despite some notability of the phrase, there's not enough to say about it to expand, lacking the significant coverage of WP:N; and it's basically a WP:DICDEF or directly analogous to one as noted.  Many catchphrases redirect to their source (e.g. I'm a doctor, not a ... to Leonard McCoy, which is sensible and there's no shame in that.  Transwiki to Wikiquote and to Memory Alpha, which surprisingly doesn't seem to have it. Шизомби (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Schizombie. --Nlu (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Schizombie. Much like Altenmann I feel this ought to have enough sourcing for a full article, but that just doesn't appear to be the case. A section in Borg (Star Trek) mentioning the phrase (perhaps without a list of its every utterance) and its cultural signifcance seems appropriate. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lots more hits in Google Books, including a book of poetry ISBN 1857544048; Title	Resistance is futile?: an existential phenomenological exploration of psychotherapists' experiences of #encountering resistance' in psychotherapy, Author	Michael Worrell, Publisher	City University, 2002; Title	"Resistance is futile": a poststructuralist analysis of the international (education for) development discourse Author	Greta S. Shultz Publisher	University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1999; and lots more.  I know this isn't Tribblepedia, but it's useful to properly source this bit of popular culture.  Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Properly sourcing it can be done within another article and on Wikiquote, etc. What reasons are there for an article on the catchphrase itself?  Mere WP:GOOGLEHITS and passing or trivial mentions do not constitute WP:Reliable sources or significant coverage. Also, any hits using the phrase without noting the Star Trek connection would probably be WP:Original research to include. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, as per previous AfD discussion. To the nominator, what original research is there in the article? Alastairward (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe my comments below address the "where's the OR?" question. --EEMIV (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm inclined to see the content kept either here or merged to the Borg (Star Trek) article. The assertion that it's used by the media is not appropriately sourced: the pair of articles use the phrase in the headline, but what Wikipedia needs is an actual third-party assertion that headlines like that are, in fact, allusions to the Borg, and not some oddball coincidence. Perhaps the phrase itself originated elsewhere, and Star Trek's own appropriation of it -- while well known -- is not the "origin story" Wikipedia should offer up. Anyhow, I've removed some of the crufty primary source stuff better suited for wikiquote. --EEMIV (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some few minutes after you wrote that, a source was added that not only links political rhetoric to fiction, but has more content in it from which this article can be expanded, including the quite pertinent observation that from the evidence of the show's own storyline, resistance is apparently not futile. It's a pity that the content about resistance being useless was edited from the article, because that points to a fair amount of material that deals with the idea, in psychological warfare, of convincing an enemy that resistance is useless. And yes, there's a source linking the twain.  It's page 727 of the Yale book of quotations (ISBN 0300107986). Uncle G (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Borg (Star Trek). If and when someone gets around to cleaning that article up, it will be the best home for it. Schizombie said it best; since coverage will be inherently limited, best to contextualize. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Assimilate and redirect to Borg (Star Trek) per Schizombie. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Resistance is futile: keep. There are sufficient sources, as demonstrated by the current article and by Uncle G, to support an article.  A merge, if deemed necessary, can be discussed outside the context of this AfD.  Powers T 15:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I dislike Star Trek but the quote is absolutely notable, as evidenced above by several editors. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I found no difficulty in finding a good source, Beyond the Final Frontier: Star Trek, the Borg and the Post-colonial, which discusses the phrase in detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep. The condition is that the article should be expanded to examine the possible etymology of the phrase, i.e., previous instances where the phrase was used that may have been where the TNG writers picked it up from. Doctor Who and Space 1999 were two examples mentioned in the talk page.  If the article is not expanded in that manner, then it doesn't really serve any purpose as a separate article that couldn't be accomplished in Borg (Star Trek), and in that case I would suggest a merge/redirect.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow that one. Wouldn't it be like trying to prove a negative, what if the inspiration didn't come from that source? Alastairward (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2010 (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.