Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition (2nd 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. Shereth 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Rules of Acquisition
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It has been seven months since this was last put at AFD, and there has been no assertion of any notability through reliable sources. This article is simply a repetition of plot trivia from various Star Trek episode articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It was closed as keep because the closer totally disregarded the requirement for reliable sources, and as you can see, it has none, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep due to overwhelming consensus in previous discussion and existence of the phrase in context used here in at least one published encyclopedia. What is good for a paper encyclopedia is good for a paperless one.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding. Clearly the nominator believes the last AfD was at fault, and thus it is perfectly reasonable to open a new discussion. You can say "speedy keep" as much as you like, its not going to happen. -- Sabre (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no reason it shouldn't happen in this case as the topic is obviously encyclopedic and verifiable and thus the previous close was correct. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Attempting to re-hash this violates Rule 16: A deal is a deal.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment''' a deal is a deal is a deal-- but only with another Ferengi.  Dloh  cierekim  21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy Here's the thing.... Anyone who sees my username could acknowledge that it pains me whenever a Trek-related subject comes into AfD. I have an instinctual defense towards all things Trek.  I've conversed online with Robert Hewitt Wolfe.  BUT... according to WP:N, we need secondary source coverage.  Currently the article apparently has one secondary source from outside the Trekverse.  Now, that don't mean there isn't secondary source coverage of The Rules of Acquisition.  But so far all the sources, save one, are primary sources.  The degree of research and sourcing present in the article, though, convinces me it shouldn't be deleted out of hand.  It is referenced, but perhaps not sufficiently to establish policy-level Notability.  So I would advise being VERY careful of just killing this without allowing further possibility of source additions (userfying.)  It's too ungainly as a merge, too much research and well written for a delete, and at present notability not established for a keep, IMVHO.  Laughing Vulcan  01:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; sourced, notable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SPEEDY KEEP, passes WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. WP:RS and WP:N are not policies and cannot be used as valid deletion criteria.  The nominator failed to delete last time and he brings no new discussion to the table so I find it hard to believe this nomination is nothing more "I didn't get my way so I'll try again."  In fact, his rationale is "the admin screwed up" despite ignoring that WP:RS is a GUIDELINE not a POLICY so I don't see how User:The Transhumanist screwed up.  No valid deletion criteria presented.  Cburnett (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all the criteria except that pesky WP:V, which is completely ignored by this article and the Transhumanist. It should not be ignored this time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The content does seem verifiable, so let's all work together to use these sources to improve the article! Let's see what we can do and then take it from there, cool? :) -- Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not misunderstand me, it would be awesome to keep this article around, if we could find something on how the writers came up with these rules, and what fans think of the rules, or if someone analyzed the Ferengi and their rules to draw parallels with culture or particular ethnic groups. But if none of that exists, or very little, which is what I suspect, then we shouldn't have an article repeating the rules from each of the episode articles, because that's what they are for. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

--Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a big trek fan I use wiki quite often and tonight I wanted to see the Rules of Acquisition, and I find it horrible that someone wants to delete it over some source guidelines...well here are the sources...WATCH THE SHOWS!!! Deep Space Nine quotes many of them and this article is a compilation of them and should stay!--Unknowntbeast (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats the kind of attitude thats going to get the page deleted. Tone down the enthusaism a little, for the articles sake. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per WP:V. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Uh. I don't know where the keep votes above are coming from.  It is surely verifiable.  I have no reason to doubt that.  The article is scrupulously cited.  What it fails is WP:PLOT and WP:N.  Utterly.  Every source is a work of fiction in the star trek universe.  The notability guidelines are quite clear on this.  We are not a star trek wiki.  Memory alpha is.  They can have all of these without dealing with our guidelines and policies on the subject.  Until the notability guidelines are changed, this article should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a big trek fan I use wiki quite often and tonight I wanted to see the Rules of Acquisition, and I find it horrible that someone wants to delete it over some source guidelines...well here are the sources...WATCH THE SHOWS!!! Deep Space Nine quotes many of them and this article is a compilation of them and should stay!
 * Unfortunately, only using Deep Space 9 and Behr's book as a source makes the copyright problem worse. If there were more secondary sources, an article could be based on those.  At the moment, this is just a simple recitation of lines from Deep Space 9 and verbatim quotes from book (quotes central to the book at that).  There's huge copyright problems here, and I think deletion is the only solution.  --Phirazo (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I think the problem here is a copyright one, not a notability one. A verbatim republishing of all the Rules of Acquisition, even with critical commentary (which there isn't much of in this article), is pushing fair use too far.  Once you remove the infringing material, there isn't much left. I would support an article that talks about the role of The Rules in Deep Space 9 that used one or two of the rules as examples, but this is too much.  --Phirazo (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean-up per WP:AFD. I'll also quote The Transhumanist here - "As the episodes of Star Trek have been seen by millions of people, they are all indisputably notable. The Rules of acquisition have come up again and again, and are a central aspect of the Ferengi way of life, and are prominently featured in dozens of episodes.  They are also the basis for the title of a popular Star Trek book.  This doesn't seem to satisfy the Notability (fiction) guideline, but at this time the status of that guideline is under dispute - but more importantly, consensus trumps a guideline.  Reliable sources is also a guideline, and the community can overrule it.  It's not a trivia section as per WP:TRIVIA because the items listed forms a logical group.  The article is not indiscriminate, as its subject matter is a specific well-known set of items." This certainly seems to be a notable plot device in the Star Trek series, sources need to be added to address the main concern of nom.  Banj e  b oi   20:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, Google books has 26 searchable books on the subject, The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition by Quark, Ira Steven Behr is devoted solely to the subject; Tal Shiar - Ferengi Rules of Acquisition has what looks to be the list of the known rules (apparently there's nearly 300) including audio clips of them from the series being quoted. Banj e  b oi   20:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above fine reasons seems to have real world sourcing and notability a bit of Star Trek lore that escaped into the real world. Needs better sourcing.  Dloh  cierekim  20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * PS-- brought these google hits over from the last AFD. They contain links to reliable, third party, verifiable sources that support by keep reasoning.  Dloh  cierekim  21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above four comments are flat wrong; the "references" are empty, the article has asserted no notability, no real world sourcing whatsoever, and the call to ignore all of wikipedias guidelines and policies should be ignored. This utterly fails WP:V and WP:N, is most likely a copyright violation as a user above has pointed out, and there is no reason to ignore all of these things. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Judgesurreal777, it's fine to disagree but to say that a link to a google book search showing two dozen books referring to the subject are "flat wrong" seems a bit inflamatory. An entrie book has been published solely on the subject of the article. Does your statemnt that this is flat wrong mean you deny the book exists, or that I've made a mistake in my search for sources? It may be more productive to demonstrate that none of the many sources presented as proof of notability do that as the sheer volume certainly suggest that the information is not only notable but also verifiable. Also inferring that other editors are calling "to ignore all of wikipedias guidelines and policies" seems to be a leap of bad faith. Not sure what your aim was there but per guidelines and policies on civility please dial it down a bit towards those who you seem to disagree.  Banj e  b oi   21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the truth is inflammatory or upsetting, edit another encyclopedia, but the sources and references given are empty, and to present references that you either know are empty or are blindly posting is wasting everyone's time. Do not post links unless it is to something that you are 100% sure establishes substantial notability, or your are simply disrupting the process by making everyone have to humor you and the empty references. I think I'll ask them to establish a policy for AFD; no more Google searches or internet searches of any kind, it is pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Although Judgesurreal777can speak for him or herself, I think when it is spoken of as an "empty source," what is meant is that these are still primary sources. They were written by authors as part of the Star Trek universe.  Now, Star Trek itself... you can easily find dozens of secondary references detailing the impact of the show, the production of the show, culture of the show.  As I see it, the only non-primary source in the article is the Asia Times article.  Even that article isn't about the Rules; the Rules are the hook on which the article's subject is based.  So... show me the secondary sources about the Rules, please!  I'd love to see those sources *and* see justification as to why FERENGI RULES OF ACQUISITION is worthy of note outside of Star Trek, so I can change my vote! Edit to add:  There is also a question of copyright violation above that may have merit... Ira Steven Behr's book The Ferengi Rules of Acquisition, are simply a listing of the then-known rules with additional rules published by Behr, together with a little additional material IIRC.  Quoting all of them also seems to me to be outside fair use.  This would not be grounds for deletion, but pruning the rules would seem to damage the article seriously as it exists.   Laughing Vulcan  01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Judgesurreal777, "Do not post links unless it is to something that you are 100% sure establishes substantial notability, or your are simply disrupting the process by making everyone have to humor you and the empty references." Seems to be rather confrontational and unhelpful as well as layered with some bad faith. This is a community process not a battleground. You can disagree but please remain civil while doing so. Inviting me to "edit another encyclopedia" seems rather antagonistic and against the spirit of working together. Banj e  b oi   23:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Articles can be deleted if reliable sources do not exist, but the Google searches done show that reliable sources do exist. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A major and recurring concept in the DS9 franchise. While most of the sources in the current article are in universe, the two published books on the subject appear to satisfy notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment When you say, "two published books," do you refer to the Behr and Behr/Wolfe books listed in the article? Because those are *also* in-universe books.  I'm not trying to pick a fight here... just trying to figure out what books keep getting referred to here, as those two are still primary sources - not secondary.  <span style="background:	#ADDFAD;color:yellow">Laughing Vulcan  02:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, may I suggest that the article's title be changed to Rules of Acquisition (Star Trek). When I first saw the title I thought it was about an actual corporate procedure; the topic obviously wouldn't be familiar to anyone who hasn't seen Star Trek, so the clarification would benefit the article should it survive AfD (which it appears it will) and lessen the in-universe stance. -- Comandante    { Talk }  03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with the article Ferengi. Since there is such a strong impetus to keep the article (if only there was an equally strong push to improve the article so it wouldn't have to go through AfD), as a compromise, simply merge the most relevant material into the Ferengi article. There's hardly anything here as it is, mainly just a lengthy list which can't possibly be necessary for the average reader's understanding of the topic; two or three items from the list would be sufficient as examples of what the "rules of acquisition" are, I believe anything more would be trivial. It's not as if the world will suffer for the lack if every single referenced rule isn't compiled into a separate list on WP.
 * Move to a Trek Wiki subject to verification that this is not breach of copyright. I have only seen such compilations in copyrighted publications -- their value to the main Wiki must be doubtful, when we have specialist ones to which researchers would turn (and the innocent can be directed) -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 06:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, highly notable concept in the Star Trek universe. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Subject is an extremely notable concept in the Trek universe and is covered in print encyclopedias (Okuda, Okuda & Mirek 1999) on the subject, which is more than enough to establish notability for me.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  02:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep by the many refs and solid arguments above. 26 google scholar hits, even one mentioning editing the wikipedia page on "Rules of Acquisition".John Z (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep Seems that the hits above provide some marginal notability. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Verifiable concept that has become notable through its continued reference in popular culture. Deletion would harm the encyclopedia. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sourcing to satisfy those who think that secondary sources are necessary for articles of this sort. DGG (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of the votes above say this sourced. It is, but it is ripping those sources off.  If this is kept, I intend to remove the list of rules as a copyvio.  --Phirazo (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. How is quoting a line of text each from multiple episodes copyvio? <u style="text-decoration:none;font-family: papyrus;color:#CC00CC">Banj e  <u style="font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:#8000FF">b oi   03:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, that has got to be fair use. The entire list of rules wasn't lifted from somewhere; each rule was taken from an episode. It's fundamentally different from copyright infringement, which would be if the list existed somewhere and was copied wholesale. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep notability established from reliable sources of at least limited independence and I could probably dig up a few more if I looked. Any copyvio claims are a secondary problem (i.e. they can be dealt with editorially) and don't require deletion.  Eluchil404 (talk) 03:39, 18 August 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.