Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (0th nomination)

Star Trek versus Star Wars
Star Trek versus Star Wars was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. 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 was a consensus to keep the article.

I am probably opening a big, ugly can of worms by bringing this up, but is this kind of self-indulgent nerdiness really necessary in an encyclopedia? (Note: I am myself a "nerd" and a fan of both series) Indrian 23:54, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. OMG U SUK ENTERPRIZE CULD OWN ALL TEH JEDIZ AND UR JUST HATIN. Also, this is a relatively major Internet/Usenet/BBS debate spanning almost the entire history of online life. Article needs some cleanup, but it should exist. Lord Bob 23:58, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and seriously clean it up; perhaps even stubbify it. It's an odd, notable phenomenon indeed, but nerdy fancruft abounds (describing canon and individual flame wars gets to be a little much). On the other hand of this issue, a Kirk versus Picard article would probably do well to hit the chopping block. Ian Pugh 00:01, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Stubbify? This is a Wiki.  Any attempt to shorten the article would last about 12 seconds.  I vote to keep.  We have a plethora of articles on every single character and event in the Star Wars and Star Trek universes (not to mention all the Simpsons and Tolkien articles).  Frivolous as it is, this one deserves to live just as much as those.  Fishal 16:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm all for that. But there's a lot of junk in that article. Maybe stubbify is too strong a word, but cleanup is imperative. Ian Pugh 17:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;this has already survived one VfD debate (see article talk page). Postdlf 00:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, Indrian, no, it is not necessary. "The Value of this debate had often been doubted by non-participants." Had it? I am flabbergasted! Anyway, perhaps this is deserves some mention as an "internet phenomenon", but I really don't see this article being encyclopedia-caliber material. Opens itself up to becoming part of the debate rather than reporting it. Could it be mentioned on a page about this sort of thing? There must be one that more generally covers this sort of geekiness that has permeated the internet. Also, too many external links. -R. fiend 00:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * If everyone else jumped off a cliff, would you write about it? Ick.  At no time in my life would I have found such a debate anything other than a confirmation that some people really need a hobby.  I've always heard of this as a joke told about science fiction fans.  I think it could be a paragraph in some other article, frankly.  I'm abstaining, closing my eyes, covering my ears, humming loudly, and wishing (like Charlie) that it would go away. Geogre 03:54, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Damn. I guess that I don't have to bother finishing my Lord of the Rings versus Harry Potter article then... Fire Star 04:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I HOPE you ain't suggestin' that Ron Weasley could last a freakin' nanosecond against Glorfindel or Radagast the Brown. Them's fightin' words! -R. fiend 04:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thing about Harry is that he's a damn superball. Nobody can kill him, but he doesn't do anything on his own.  He seems to work best when thrown at someone.  Then again, does Gandalf ever actually do any magic?  And besides, what are Hogswart's students except hobbits with socks? -- Anonymous Coward.
 * If everybody jumped off a cliff? Well...then it would be notable... Lord Bob 04:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, Bob, but then who would write about it? Ian Pugh 05:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I would, because I'd have gotten the word late. Geogre 17:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up a bit to get a more neutral point of view. Like I said in late March when this article came up on vfd before (as Postdlf notes) this is a 21st century version of the European literary wars of the 19th century.  In addition to the formal academic battles there was a tremendous amount of juvenile debate back then, which brought strong emotions in a very interesting ways.  Unless of course you happened to be an innocent caught in the middle of their screaming nonsense sessions, in the middle of a public square or in a theatre.  This time I am going to try to put in a little bit of NPOV in the article myself, along to a referecne to the 19th century lit battles. --AlainV 04:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * "The debate sheds light on the profound social emotions underlying popular literary activities in the 21st century." Is this a fancy way of saying that fans enjoy fanwanking? A lot of text to say nothing more profound than "Fans furiously debate this issue" and "Hey, they fought about other stuff in the 19th century too". Delete. Gamaliel 05:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Improv 06:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I started trying to read this to make a judgment, but didn't have the fortitude. So dull, on such a trivial subject, but apparently someone cares. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm leaning toward suggesting articles like this be Transwikied to Wikibooks as modules in a book entitled, The Sociology of Popular Culture Fandom. D AVODD  [[User_talk:Davodd|« TALK »]] 09:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep with some cleanup. This debate is basically continuous, and a very notable part of fandom.  This topic can yeild an encyclopedic article, as is quite evident from the current near-encyclopedic attempt.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  11:45, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep for two reasons. First, keep on principle because it's a relisting and the relister has not given any good reason to expect a different outcome. And it's not just any relisting, but one which Angela un-VfDed with a comment "(unvfd: many votes to keep)". And looking at the discussion I see 8 clear "keeps" and one probable "keep" and, at most, 3 deletes (counting RickK's "nonsense" comment as a delete, and counting one unsigned "delete"). This wasn't even close. This was a rough consensus to keep. Second, what we have here is an encyclopedic-quality article on a trivial, silly topic. My current flaky personal behavior, for which I am not sure I can articulate a rationale, is that I am a qualitarian. If there is a cadre of people who are willing to write a fairly good article, exercise a fairly responsible degree of scholarship, and generally keep an article up to encyclopedic standards, I'll accept it. I like thoughtful, thorough documentation of pop-cultural phenomena and fads, e.g. Frederick Lewis Allen's Only Yesterday. If I have two different reasons to keep can I cast two votes? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 14:37, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Just say the word and I'll chime in! You're my idol! Dpbsmith002 14:46, 1 Apr 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV/Undecided There are sections that are neutral, but there are others that are biased, one way or the other. And I've noticed a shift between a more neutral view and more heavily "pro-wars" view recently that might have shifted every day. It could have even shifted hourly, for all I know. From what I've read of the latest "version" of this quickly edited page, the section on the "debate declining" and the text of the two external links for "st-v-sw.net" and "StarDestroyer.Net" is biased to the "pro-wars". The text of the section "value of the debate" mentions "StarDestroyer.Net", which I just mentioned has biased text in its description, and continues with a biased view for those of the site's board members. I don't think this belongs either. This page IS becoming part of the debate, it seems. Perhaps a third party from the wikipedia staff could come in and remove any and all biased text and leave it with the "bare bones". There could be a warning at the top about refraining from adding bias to the page, to make it clear to those that want to edit the page. And that if the adding of biased text continues, the page will be deleted. This would be fair, to give those that are changing it constantly a chance to "clean up their act" and start being mature. The wikipedia is for everyone, not to be dragged into the debate as propaganda.
 * Keep, but maybe a session on cleanup would be appropriate. It is a major debate on the Internet (though it seems that for most fans who have been around for a while, this is approximately equivalent to the discussion of the Balrog's wings&mdash;i.e. we really don't want to go down that road again). However, it should discuss the debate itself from a more historically-aware perspective: I was involved in these discussions before we had even heard of the prequels, so the implication that anything related to Attack of the Clo'nes is of primary importance is highly misleading. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Star Trek v. Star Wars is a debate that just never seems to die.  It's really something quite spectacular/sad, it's attracted some of the most passionate/embarrassing fans in existence, and it's probably going to outlive us all.  That's worthy of a wikipedia article. - Lifefeed 19:15, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep personally I think the ST v SW debate is extremely sad, but its article-worthy for sure (although it would be nice if the article was less... well... crap than it is now --Cynical 21:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has significant point-and-laugh value, if nothing else. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 22:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, maybe with some Clean Up. Well known Usenet/Internet debate. The article is written from in relatively NPOV, just a little work needed. Besides, eveyone knows how much Star Trek rocks while Star Wars blows. ;-) func(talk) 22:52, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. NeoJustin 23:58, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's to be kept (and I guess it is), I think it should be moved to Star Wars versus Star Trek debate, to make it clear its about the debate itself, and not an article on which is better, which is what the titles makes it seem like it is. Anyone object? -R. fiend 00:44, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, with appropriate redirects, of course. func(talk) 00:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Good enough for me. This page would be deleted then, right?
 * The title itself would likely be kept as a (my vote) redirect with most if not all of the content cleaned up a bit. Fire Star 04:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds clear this way. --AlainV 06:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * redirect with some clean up if someone knows how --Blkshrt 01:04, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a noteable debate/fight/yelling match thingy. As such it does deserve an entry in Wikipedia... just like Star Wars and Star Trek. However i recommend this is watched for POV things and kept realistic and objective. --Asmodai 23:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Actually interesting, and a noted issue too.  If you're going to keep the "creator of phrases like "asshat" by a 95% "keep" vote (Something Awful Forums), then this can keep.  Terrapin 14:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is an intresting aspect of internet fandoms and cultures. ScottM 22:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and incorporate Egg Troll's post . That is all. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:24, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not too happy about the quality of the article, but it's certainly a valid topic with a long history. Keep. Psychonaut 14:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep--Josiah 05:04, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but for God's sake, why this, and not schools?! Intrigue 19:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up and delete some of the fancruft. I suppose it serves a purpose of some sort. Suntiger 20:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to JnanaBase. Npc 12:24, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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