Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash; Xezbeth 10:28, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems
Reads far too much like a conversation for my liking. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also could be considered original research. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and needs a very serious cleanup. Good stuff but is presented as a debate between anonymous fans. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added the cleanup template. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The author is not using WP as a soapbox in this case mostly. Were it not for the extensive information in this article, I would have suggested a merge to Star Trek: Enterprise, but the article contains much substantial information and issues. However, the article definitely must be made into an actual article, not a debate.--M412k 23:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep By fully covering rebuttals for each point, this is a pretty good way to present such an article fairly and in a relatively NPOV format. While I do think this should be kept, I hope we're not showing a "nerd" bias here.  I would imagine, for example, that a similar article collecting inconsistencies between the Pokemon anime and games would probably be deleted as "cruft".  My point, friends, is that if we keep this article, we're setting a precedent or a "bar"... let's not forget that fact in future VfDs. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  00:12, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep although as a regular editor of the page in question I'll understand if my vote is discounted. As Andrew says above, attempts are made to keep this as balanced as possible, and the reason this page exists is because when it was originally part of the original article on Enterprise it was weighing things down. Now that the show is cancelled and the debates for and against the series are going to eventually fade away, this article can no doubt be shortened. It certainly does need to be trimmed regularly for NPOV. But I think it's a worthy article because it discusses what was (and still is) a hot topic in the science fiction community. Tone Sidaway's comment about it being a debate format is well taken as this is indeed the intent of the article initially because it was felt this was the easiest way of organizing opposing viewpoints (while reducing the possibility of vandalism or POV rants being added). But, the time is right to reformat and reorganize the article. PS. I see someone just added a cleanup tag to the article. Isn't this overkill? One would assume a VFD tag is by definition a cleanup request. 23skidoo 00:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * From early votes, it seems fairly likely that it will be a keep consensus. It is possible that the vfd notice will be removed before the clean-up is complete. Sorry if I have offended you, remove it if you like. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What most concerns me is the lack of references. As it stands it could be interpreted as original research, with fans using Wikipedia to enter their own personal findings of apparent continuity problems.  This is not permitted on Wikipedia.  If some of these points and rebuttals are covered elsewhere, in one or more sources doesn't matter, then during cleanup those points should be retained and the references explicitly included.  Points that just seem self-evident to the editor--no matter how obviously correct they are--should not be included if he can find no reasonable, citable source for them.  Editors wanting to do that kind of work should take it to an appropriate fan forum and then maybe some other party will think the report notable enough to cite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but in need of a serious cleanup. Fairly well written article. JamesBurns 07:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to Star Trek: Enterprise continuity. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:08, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a good article, just needs a cleanup RussellG 10:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. First of all, any of the major continuity problems that aren't notable enough to be mentioned in the main entperise article are fancruft. Second of all, this genre of article strongly implies original research, and if its kept I will delete any addition to the article if it is not accompianed by a refrence. The debate format makes it even worse because in the popular discussion (ie. the external to wikipedia discussions) its possible that many points will not have a counter point making any wikipedians attempt at a counterpoint necessarily a forbidden original research.
 * Keep I agree that the format needs to be changed for conformity's sake, but some echo of the point-counterpoint current format should be retained.  And, in response to the last voter, I don't see anything that is truly original research, and there is nothing wrong with simply noting that some alleged continuity questions remain unanswered.  I think you're jumping the gun here in assuming the worst of people who might add new points.  Isn't faith in fellow users supposed to pervade this place?  June 19, 2005


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .