Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems (second 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 of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems
I've thought about this a lot after cleaning up the article and attempting to monitor it, and I'm no longer sure it deserves a place on Wikipedia. Look at this edit - It may be perfectly valid as a theory, but there's no way to check if the contributer simply thought that up on the spot and added it, thus it's original research it might be original research. The same could also be said about some of my own additions. The article is wide open for original research and in some people's eyes may qualify as Trekcruft. There's also the very real danger that it is succeptable to an easy loss of POV, given the 'soapbox' style favoured by some. The article's talk page demonstrates some of these problems. Hayter 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep . I think it's an interesting and encyclopedic article (despite hardly being a Trekkie at all, honest.) I agree that OR is a problem and I agree it's a big one - with a lot of articles - but it calls for discussion and cleanup, not deletion. Someone should certainly go through it carefully and remove the OR. Is there a "This article is suspected to contain original research" tag that can be put on articles like this? Can we have one? Is this the place to ask? Robin Johnson 10:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The trouble is, with something like this, there's no way to determine what is or isn't original research. You can't cite sources for arguments as you would with another article e.g. "The Voyager once docked at Deep Space Nine. (VOY: "Caretaker") Almost all the sections run with "some fans theorise..." With the exception of those situations where the studio has put forth an explanation for 'errors' and this can be cited, this could all be seen as OR. And given that the studio has been largely silent in regards to its alleged violation of the Star Trek canon, except to say "we haven't done it," what does that leave for the article? - Hayter 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read the article again, and it's worse than I remembered - unsalvageable. Interesting stuff, but that doesn't make an article. Delete. Robin Johnson 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually there is, and you mention it yourself: Cited sources. If people have already published books or magazine articles propounding arguments about continuity and self-consistency, then documenting those arguments is not original research.  One can cite sources, if they exist.  The problem with the article is whether the sources exist, or whether the entire contents of this article are new arguments and theories made up by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But you also have the problem of judging reputable sources. I'd hate for the article to be filled up with links to places like Neoseeker where coversation runs in a similar fashion to, "an wat are the romulanz doin wiv warp drive - pissants don't have it yet." And even respected sites such as Ex Astris Scientia are ultimately run by one person so whilst I may find it to be a valid source, User X may not. This is what I see as the main problem with the article. By its nature, it cannot be adequately cited as say, an article about perceptions of FOXnews, which would be covered in national papers and the like. For something such as this, I feel the only options are allowing OR or deleting the article. Clearly, the first is not allowed so that leaves one solution. - Hayter 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep- doesn't make sense for a substantial article to be deleted. Post a cleanup tag if it needs work, or a POV tag if necessary. Astrotrain 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Very important for WP credibility to delete pages which are unsourceable by nature, especially large ones. Any truly encyclopedic content will find its way into other pages. Must be disciplined.
 * Keep- I tend to agree with Astrotrain. This article does have its merit, it may not be provable that these are discontinuities but the article points to real and certifiable concerns of some of the Star Trek fans about the production of new episodes for the series. Maybe a solution should be to address the article with that in mind. Askewmind''' | (Talk) 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Astrotrain and Askewmind'''. Has potential. Essexmutant 12:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if it had "potential", or parts of it had "merit", do you guys really foresee that the necessary work will be done to source it properly? It seems more likely just to be a persistent embarrassment to WP (like many other pages), not doing justice to the parts of it which are good, which would be far more credible in the context of various other articles. Kill this one and you will benefit from renewal elsewhere. Zargulon 12:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Move, interesting article. I'm not sure of the protocol regarding interwiki transfers, but can this just be moved to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki? It would be a much better place for an article of this length and detail. --Canley 14:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Length and detail are not problems for Wikipedia. Original research is, however.  That is what we should be considering here. Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's hardly a TV show out there that doesn't have "continuity problems" like this. It's all just made-up stuff, and examining the fiction at this level of detail isn't an encyclopedic thing to do. Monicasdude 14:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC
 * Keep. I disagree with Monicasdude. Details are everything to the harder-core Star Trek fans.  Perhaps "Continuity Problems in TV Show 'Family Ties'" doesn't warrant a page, but it certainly does for Star Trek.  I sympathize with the people who point out its lack of sources, and the page certainly needs work, but I think it's an important enough topic to warrant an article (or at least part of one). -Bindingtheory 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge most important points into main article. This vote comes after a lot of soul-searching since I was one of the people who originated this article, spinning it off from the main series article. Its purpose prior to May 2005 was essentially to try and provide an outlet for both criticism and rebuttal of a then-current television series which had become very controversial, and the tug-of-war between people who assumed every line of dialogue was wrong and those who actually liked the show had derailed the main article once to often. The series is no longer current, therefore IMO this article's function is at an end in it's current form. Perhaps an article on overall Trek continuity issues could be created from this; after all, Phil Farrand published at least 3 "Nitpicker" books on the subject for TOS, TNG and DS9. 23skidoo 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there such a book for this series? Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep a good article, maybe needs a tag to say it needs more sources - it has some at the bottom, but it could use some more -- Astrokey44 |talk 15:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It has some external links. But there's no indication that they were or are sources. Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this enterprise continuity has been used as a source - it mentions many of the same things -- Astrokey44 |talk 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * EAS is maintained almost solely by Bernd on his own. It's an excellent site, but it's not a community - just his POV. - Hayter 09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Jcuk 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide motivation for your keep vote? Zunaid 12:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:V. Comment: I'd like to point out that WP:V says that articles should be verifiable, and according to the research by Hayter it isn't, which is a clear violation of policy. Does this not mean that voting on this is inconsequential? Zunaid 12:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I fully agree with Astrokey44 here. -- JJay 19:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Man oh man, original research up the wazoo. Vulcan eating habits? 100% pure fanboy cruft. --Calton | Talk 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Most of the "theories" are unverifable and the article is always going to be filled with original research.  What research isn't original to Wikipedia is going to come from non-notable sources.  —Cleared as filed. 02:49, 31 January 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.