Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: The Orphans of War


 * 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 delete. Core desat 06:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Orphans of War

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources cited except for a message posted on a fan forum. Appears to be fan cruft. Not even released yet. WP:Not a crystal ball. will381796 (talk) 04:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. The "fan forum" is actually the forum for the show's production team. It is a legitimate fan production which HAS been released. Iceblade1545 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless, forums are not reputable sources that can be cited in WP. At least, this is my current understanding of WP:SOURCES. will381796 (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not on a fan forum, no. But an official announcement made by the film's creator on the film's official forums, yes. But regardless, the page where the film itself can be downloaded is also referenced and the official websites (not forums) of the two teams involved are linked on the page. Iceblade1545 (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This forum vs. official argument misses an important point. Even if it is official, it is a primary source. Notability must be established from published reliable sources intellectually independent of the subject. All sources cited belong to Hidden Frontier. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

*Keep; Star Trek articles usually see me recommending delete (especially because of arguments like the WP:OTHERSTUFF above) but this one appears to have a link that, while it goes to a forum, should be allowed to establish the same sort of notability we would see in movies about to come out. Grain of salt: since I don't know anything about Star Trek, I could be wrong about the authority of the forum, but it appears legit. Epthorn (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this article on a Star Trek fan production is deleted then you need to go delete all the rest of them. I see we have several on Wikipedia right now. There is a gray area in regard to legality of fan produced films, but the fans (the ones not acting in the productions I guess?) keep buying them so they are "out" there. In fact go down to the local video store and you will find them in the sci-fi section.  Sting_au   Talk  06:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "If article X then article Y." is a fallacious argument, for obvious reasons. Please address this article.  You haven't provided any valid counterargument to the above argument that it is unverifiable, and as such no valid reason for keeping this article. Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But he's right. If this article was deleted, then all the other Trek fan productions would have to be deleted as well based on the same arguments. And it isn't unverifiable. There is a link in the article where the film itself can be watched and the set was visited by Rod Roddenberry and featured in his podcast. Iceblade1545 (talk) 1:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting page from the "Otherstuff" link. I hadn't seen that one before (still fairly new). Important to remember though that, "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." I found a more appropriate link (it's official policy), WP:CON That's what we don't have here.  Sting_au   Talk  10:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While editors need not follow essays, you should probably take a look at that particular one since it deals directly with AFD and you will probably find yourself having a difficult time of building consensus if you use many of the arguments listed there. My reference to WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a policy-demand or WP:WIKILAWYER statement; it is, rather, an essay which I believe in. Instead of explaining why I believe it is unhelpful to use the 'other stuff' argument every time I'm in an AFD, it's easier to just point to that essay, which is probably much more articulate than I could be on the topic.Epthorn (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you completely missed the, "Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)" bit as well? :-) WP:CON wasn't a cheap shot by the way. The vote I gave was "Keep" and that will remain my opinion even if I also am unable to articulate it any better than that. Wikipedia has a broad range of people from all walks of life. I'm just one of them. I'm going to continue to keep giving my opinion where I see it necessary to do so.  Sting_au   Talk  11:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I didn't miss that... I didn't limit myself to linking to the page, however. I gave a reason why I thought the article should be kept, and then pointed to the "other" blurb as well. I try and avoid thinking about all the little clauses of those pages like the one you just mentioned because it would drive me insane. Try to accuse someone of Wikilawyering without being a wikilawyer yourself... try citing WP:IAR without balling up in a corner and twitching. I need to go get my morphine...Epthorn (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL :-) Yeah it's only Wikipedia after all. If life here drives you insane just turn the computer off and take a break.  Sting_au   Talk  13:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. While it is an impressive fan production, I can find no mention of the show from sources other than the show's producers and user forums. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see independant reliable references that verify notability. Without such, it comes off as an advertisement. (I also fail to see evidence of WP:CRYSTAL, but maybe I just missed that.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verdatum (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mis-read the article. The article states the sequel will soon be released. I rescind WP:CRYSTAL as being a reason for deletion.  Lack of notability and lack of verifiable, independent sources remain.  will381796 (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted a verifiable independent source. Iceblade1545 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, WP:V. This isn't even an unreleased, projected studio production.  This is an unreleased, projected fan film.  I have serious doubts about the notability of fan flicks at all, never mind ones that don't yet exist.    RGTraynor  16:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Clearly you didn't read the article very carefully or you would see that it has, in fact, been released and there is even a link to where it can be watched. And if this were the first fan film to have an article made about it, you would have a point. But there are, in fact, several others, Star Trek-related and otherwise. And the lack of independent sources has been rectified. Iceblade1545 (talk)
 * I'm sorry...I don't see the independent sources. An example of an independent source: if a national newspaper wrote an article on the fan film, if StarTrek.com wrote something about the fan film, if a major magazine wrote a review of the fan film.  These are independent verifiable sources.  The Hidden Frontier and the Intrepid websites are hardly independent as you described this fan film as being "a new Star Trek fan production from the creators of Star Trek: Hidden Frontier and Star Trek: Intrepid."  Your only other sources are the Hidden Frontier forum and the TrekUnited forum, both of which are not suitable as sources. will381796 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Has it? I see nothing in the three references posted that qualifies as a reliable source.  Two link to fan forum sites, one to the makers' own site.  Certainly a link to YouTube is meaningless; my most recent choral performance doesn't become notable because it's up on YouTube.  It is not as if Trek or SF in general is without publications or widely recognized reliable sources.  That aside, if other fan films likewise lack notability or reliable sources, they should be put up for AfD as well.    RGTraynor  16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Point us in the direction to the other fan films and we will check them out and nominate them for deletion or fix them if possible.  will381796 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, changed from Keep; as I was worried, I misunderstood the forum. I thought it was an actual studio production, not a fan film. If it were the former and the forum were official, that would be a different story. Epthorn (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2007 (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.