Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (4th 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 delete helpful and useful isn't a reason for keeping. Jaranda wat's sup 23:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek versus Star Wars
AfDs for this article:
 * Talk:Star Trek versus Star Wars
 * Votes for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars
 * Articles for deletion/Star Trek versus Star Wars (recount)


 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete This article is almost entirely original research. I see no independent, reliable sources for what is essentially a long-running nerd argument. --Phirazo 03:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. Only one reliable source is quoted (the Forbes article). Dbromage  [Talk]  03:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Star Trek versus Star Wars seems more of a forum topic.Kessingler 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. Oysterguitarist 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If you go to the Forbes link and click on "Star Wars Vs. Star Trek", it compares some differences such as the amount of books, video games, and money made for both sagas. But it's definitely not enough to warrant its own article. Almost all of the article is OR anyway. Spellcast 04:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Almost entirely original research, discussing a series of arguments occuring on internet bulletin boards. Calgary 04:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Who cares? Giggy  Talk 05:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - appears to be original research; no sources for virtually every piece of content in the entire article. --Haemo 05:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the article contains OR, trim it. If the comparison itself, as well as its effects on fandom, is non-notable, then I do not think I would be able to find references in the LA Daily News, Salon , the Philadelphia inquirer , and the Chicago Tribune, all within a minute of looking around. '(I wish to stress that when I say 'references', I mean the articles quoted above are entirely about the comparison and its effects on fandom.) Hornplease 06:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The Salon article is an editorial and is already mentioned in the article, along with a heaping helping of original research about fan reaction to the article. The Tribune and the Inquirer articles are the same article, which is mostly interviews with fans. I'm still looking around for the full text of the L.A. Daily News articles, but the blurb in the link screams "news of the weird".  I don't see how an article can be built from these sources.  As for trimming OR, if you remove the OR from this article, there won't be anything left. --Phirazo 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC
 * Comment Certainly there's OR. I don't see how the Brin article and a follow-up book does not help us here. Are we claiming that being the subject of an opinion article is not helpful in evaluating notability? I didn't realise that the Trib article and the PI article are identical; but that does not change the fact that (a) Knight-ridder ran it in several papers and (b) it is an indicator of notability. I quite agree that our current rules on RS even for fandom exclude a great deal of reliable online sources for uncontentious material (a problem, in the opinion of individuals such as Teresa Nielsen Hayden), but the various links provided indicate that an argument against notability fails, given that the comparison is the subject of multiple published sources satisfying current rules. The actual OR involved is a content problem, not something inherent to the subject matter. (For a distinction, see my comments on the 'political change' AfD immediately above. Hornplease 00:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep and rewrite/expand  I think the subject of the matter is worth an article. After all, these are two huge fanbases and they do collide in many occasions. Article would need to be expanded with external references though, and much of it would need to be rewritten. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 07:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC) - Moving forward to normal Keep. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 18:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced fancruft. Thin Arthur 08:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Two huge sci-fi franchises which do cause discussion and comparisons. However, a rewrite may well be in order, as the article is a bit long for the subject. The title isn't really encyclopedic, either. Delete Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Can you think of any published comparisons that could be cited in such a rewrite? Jakew 12:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactally, Strong Delete fancruft DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 12:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Response. I accept the point that a sourced rewrite isn't really possible. Since I don't think the article in the present form is tenable as an encyclopedia article, I've changed my vote. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Now that the charge against the article is "OR" rather than "non-notable", this can and will be easily addressed by sourcing. Akerkhof 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If and only if such sources actually exist, which has not been demonstrated. If all the content has to be removed for sourcing problems, this is equivalent to deleting the article.  Zun aid  ©  ®  15:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As with any synthesis article, notability of the concept being synthesised into a topic must be demonstrated by referencing independent sources that have ALREADY made the synthesis. Without such third party referencing this article is fails both NOR as well as notability guidelines.  Zun aid  ©  ®  15:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It seems like the links that Hornplease provides would blow up the SYNTH argument against, as well as address your comment to my vote.  Is your position that those links could not be successfully incorporated into this article?  Akerkhof 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly three unique third-party independent articles? For possibly the two largest sci-fi franchises in history? Methinks this demonstrates a lack of real-world notability. These articles make the comparison, they don't discuss the comparison as a phenomenon i.e. their use in any Wikipedia article would be as primary sources, not secondary. Compare: "A few Reliable Sources have drawn a comparison between...", which still requires the synthesis of the Reliable Source material into Wikipedia, whereas "The Reliable Guide to Star Wars and Star Trek documents the comparisons made by various other sources and poses the question: why does noone seem to care?" Primary sources do not establish notability, and to my mind do not adequately address SYNTH issues either.  Zun aid  ©  ®  14:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

-PeterVerkhovensky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Delete While some of the sources do provide synthesis, the majority of this article is original research and not cited.  Also, just because a reliable source compares two science fiction movies does not mean that an encyclopedia should have an entry on it.   Let the secondary sources do the synthesis Corpx 16:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as I enjoyed such debate in my younger days, the result of this article can't be anything but original research. --Farix (Talk) 18:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per OR, POV, WP:V and non encyclopedic cockadookie Rackabello 18:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Awash with OR. Most of the above links are unsuitable (requiring registration), although probably enough to establish notability. This article attracts a significant amount of POV editing and trolling that it wouldn't hurt to lose ;) EyeSereneTALK 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether or not the online copy of an article requires registration has nothing to do with our ability to source it. And we shouldn't delete articles because of vandalism.  Ichormosquito 19:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although it does make it difficult to check out citations (maybe no more so than using sources from, say, a library book, but with such a contentious article I believe it is a factor). Also agreed that vandalism is a cleanup, not a deletion, issue... my comment was more in the nature of mentioning losing it as an added benefit than a deletion argument, but I obviously expressed it badly ;) EyeSereneTALK 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite The article needs to be rewritten, but there are many third-party sources out there that have made this synthesis. Here are some more: Forbes Erie Times News The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Star (Malaysia)  Ichormosquito 19:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and source better Ichormosquito references make it clear it is a notable topic despite flaws as written now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Hornplease's are relevant too, especially the one from Salon.com. Ichormosquito 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Wikipedia is not the place for trivial fancruft like this. This is a non-notable topic - how many reliable, published sources solely and significantly deal with comparing these two? not enough to assure notability, that's for sure - that is a ripe breeding ground for OR. VanTucky  (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I wouldnt have thought so till I looked at the references. The subject is in fact the subject of significant discussion. We dont remove articles because they might, sometime in the future, have OR.DGG (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG, whom I have been noticing making some pretty good arguments here lately! :) Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This has been much discussed and is a notable topic. There has even been a documentary made about this rivalry. A well sourced article can be written on this notable topic. Davewild 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator, this is all WP:SYNTH and violates our no original research policy. Burntsauce 17:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. Jay32183 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is real, the debate exists,that some editors see it as frivolous doesn't stop it from being real. It is notable in how the online fan communities have formed and consolidated in their opposition to each other.KTo288 22:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is defined as having significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. You have to show that, you can't just say "Oh, it's notable". Jay32183 22:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as extremely frivolous fancruft. Besides, a Star Destroyer could blow Enterprise-D into pieces faster than Picard could say "Make it so." --Agamemnon2 23:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This page details a unique look at a fan debate that has existed on the Internet for quite some time. Alyeska 22:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I also suggest a moratorium on submitting this article for a deletion vote.  It has, afterall, survived three previous attempts.  Any more attempts will simply be a waste of bandwidth. Pretty Good Satan 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Trek and Wars are both hugely influential scifi fandoms. The issue of crossover debates between the two is a minor factor, but one with a lot of history and argumentation behind it.
 * Strong Keep i dont know how much you are aware of internet history as a whole, but the STvsSW era was a big part of the subculture.

For the same reason we dont delete articles about napoleon's war campaigns or even stuff about myspace is because the information exists and wikipedia is supposed to act as an encyclopedic entry which at least attempts to document as much as possible. To delete the SWvsST article would be like saying "its ok to destoy some history based on what i feel like now", its simply a biased judgement based on ignorance of the fact.TTMSHU 03:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Anytime someone cites "fancruft" as a reason for deletion, that deletion is automatically suspect, because all the term means is "something I don't like," which is not a valid reason to delete anything.  Furthermore, this debate has played a very large role in Internet subculture, and is notable for that alone, as demonstrated by the multiple references to it in various media linked above.  Rogue 9 04:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion is actually that the article is completely unsourceable original research. Jay32183 04:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you want proof that it exists and is a large phenomenon? That can easily be provided in a matter of minutes; I'm tempted to tell you to learn to use Google.  I'll give the article a look and see what I can do with it, but given that it's survived three deletion attempts already, I see this fourth one as nothing more than a waste of AfD's time.  Rogue 9 04:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the responsibility of those wishing to keep material to provide sources. People wanting to delete articles do not have to prove none exist. Find sources or don't say "keep". Plain and simple. Also, no reliable sources will exist. This is a fanboy debate. It will always be original research and never have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Jay32183 05:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If that were the case, source citations would be asked for. You know, all those pages that have comments that original research needs to be removed and sources added.  Instead the article is just nominated for deletion without consideration given for improvement. Alyeska 05:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case the article cannot be improved. It is impossible. This article is 100% original research and always will be. Deletion is the answer. You should not be offended that articles get nominated for deletion. People calling for deletion have no obligation to try to improve the article, they only have to consider the possibility of improvement. Jay32183 05:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't help but notice the pejorative language. I will say keep if it so pleases me to say keep, and in fact it does.  The article documents a widespread and highly notable Internet phenomenon.  That you don't like that fact due to your apparent dislike of "fanboys" is of no consequence.  Rogue 9 05:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You will be ignored if your "keep" is simply a vote, and not a contribution to a discussion about how this article does or does not fail policy and guideline. Jay32183 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my initial entry? It does not fail policy because the topic is mentioned in multiple media sources and is well documented across the Internet in general, and guidelines don't matter. Rogue 9 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never knew that reporting fact was original research. You know, all those external links in the page happen to source the claims given.  Calling this entire article original research with no chance for improvement is incredibly short sited and arrogant.  Your saying that your right and couldn't possibly be wrong.  Don't give the people you disagree with any chance to improve anything. Alyeska 15:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Forbes article is the only reliable source independent of the topic and it isn't being used for anything meaningful. There is no defense within policy or guideline for this article. The article fails WP:N as well. Jay32183 18:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets see, source material in inadmissable, you must have indepedent information from acredited news agencies. You can't just read it with your own eyes.  Oh yeah, thats logical. Alyeska 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic is required. Try reading Notability before claiming something is notable. Jay32183 22:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just like the Trek page Jean-Luc Picard meets the requirements (rolls eyes) Alyeska 02:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What does any other article have to do with this one? --Phirazo 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The point being, that page is nothing more then "fancruft" and certainly not notable. And yet, its perfectly allowed. Alyeska 03:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't hold water. These two articles are completely different.  Picard is a Star Trek captain, there is certainly information to be had on that.  This article is about a nerd argument. Any article about it will neccessarily be a mostly a novel synthesis of existing sources, with a few sources that merely prove the argument exists (the Forbes article). --Phirazo 16:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The primary arguments given against this page is that it is fancruft and that it isn't notable. Those are the two arguments.  Those exact same arguments can be made in reference to fictional characters who have entire biographies detailing them.  Whats more, Picard is a fictional character and so the information isn't real whereas this page is detailing real information. Alyeska 18:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an argument to delete that article, not to keep this one. Jay32183 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not true. Established precedent.  Others articles that supposedly violate the given reasons to delete this article (fancruft and notability) exist and are allowed to exist.  Therefor no violation exists and this article should not be deleted. Alyeska 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is the fundamental flaw of the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. They aren't necessarily "allowed to exist". Does that article have an AFD that resulted in "Keep", not "No consensus"? People wishing to delete an article have no obligation to nominate all articles of similar condition, especially when sourcing is the issue. Some unsourced articles do have sources out there and people will get them if they don't have to do it for 5000 articles all at once. Also, the reasons for deletion here are notability and original research, not fancruft. Fancruft isn't actually a reason for deletion because it's completely subjective and basically it's the WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC argument. Jay32183 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you just completely fail to notice that this article has not one, not two, but three AFDs that resulted in "Keep," not "No consensus?" Rogue 9 05:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about one or two, or even three pages. I am talking about hundreds, quite possibly thousands of pages that detail fictional characters who have absolutely no notability and are definately fancruft.  How about the entire cast of characters from Star Trek.  An average of 7 characters per series over 5 series, thats 35 character pages.  Or how about the pages detailing characters from the X-Men universe.  Or what about Star Wars pages?  These are pages that will never get deleted unless there is a massive shift in consensus.  There is no fundamental flaw.  These pages are not merely tolerated or allowed, they are encouraged by the practices of Wikipedia.  And to use reasoning such as fancruft and notability as a reason to get rid of other articles while allowing fictional character biographies is a classic double standard. Alyeska 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you are talking about that many pages, and they do, in fact, all need to be deleted. Trying to delete them all at once will end in "no consensus", but one at a time will not. There are some that do have the sources, Padme Amidala and Palpatine for instance. Jay32183 19:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt many will be deleted at all. And sources does not equal notability.  Just do a little research on Brian Peppers and Stolen Sidekick. Alyeska 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability = significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Read WP:N, that is the actual policy. Jay32183 23:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the vast majority of character bios don't meet this requirement. I still don't see them getting deleted.  And I really doubt you do either.  Paradigm shifts aren't a common site afterall. Alyeska 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Other stuff should be deleted too" is not a reason to keep. It never will be. Those article do not meet a speedy criteria, so they require AFD's. Don't complain that a particular article was nominated for deletion while acknowledging that it fails policy. Jay32183 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Alyeska, are you really suggesting the article should use bulletin boards for sources? That is about as unreliable as you can get.  --Phirazo 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, the only part of this article that is really objectionable to you is the newsgroup /message board history part? Because everything else (I realize that is 50% of the article) is readily sourced.  I count at least 8 sources in this very AFD, two of which, the Forbes article and the salon article, verifies most of the introduction and "Major issues" section and are already cited.  We can delete the history if that's what is getting everyone's knickers in a bind.  Akerkhof 02:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole article is a "newsgroup /message board history". It all has to go. --Phirazo 16:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If your point is that message boards are unreliable as sources of information on other topics, then fine. But if the article needs to source the fact that something is widely discussed on message boards, then the discussions themselves seem a perfectly adequate source, given that they're right there and readily obvious.  Rogue 9 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-published sources, such as message boards and blogs, are generally held as unreliable sources for anything. Besides, any sourcing from message boards will be a novel synthesis of the arguments presented there, since the author would have to characterize the debate somehow.  This is not a trivial or obvious thing to do, and is something that would require a secondary source. --Phirazo 15:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The bulk of the keeps boil down to WP:ILIKEIT votes, but that doesn't change the fact that this is synthesized original research.  There is no indication that this topic has received any kind of significant coverage by independent secondary sources. RFerreira 22:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking to Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I can't help but notice how many delete votes violate this very page. Alyeska 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you redirect your comment below the actual comment or "vote" you feel is in violation, rather placing such general commentary below my own. Failing to demonstrate non-trivial coverage by independent sources is firmly grounded in policy as a reason to delete.  RFerreira 23:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thanking you for linking that page which let me read it. Alyeska 23:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had linked to it more than once already to show why your arguments weren't acceptable. Jay32183 23:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What's unacceptable is your apparently virulent wish to destroy information in a project that's attempting to accumulate the sum of human knowledge. If you want to do that, get out.  Rogue 9 05:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. This article topic does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. It fails WP:N. Not one argument for keeping the article addresses that, except to outright lie. Jay32183 19:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think "violate" is the wrong wording when talking about WP:ATA. WP:ATA is an essay, and the idea is to help editors make good arguments in AfDs. --Phirazo 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Are many Wikipedia articles on fiction a pit of unverifiable fanboyish cruft? Yes.  Does this give a free pass to all articles on fiction?  No.  Simple as that, really.  --Phirazo 21:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Everyone is just ignoring everyone else here. The delete people keep saying that this is synthesized original research, and the keep people keep saying that there are multiple links demonstrating secondary synthesis of the remaining parts of the article.  I think we have enough.. uh... debate to now receive the "consensus" decision from the mods.  Akerkhof 22:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what's happening at all. The delete people are actually saying that this subject does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. The keep people are saying "I don't care what the policy is, this article stays". The problem will continue beyond this AFD if the people saying "keep" don't understand that what they are saying is factually wrong. Jay32183 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like it to me. Also, the delete people keep moving the goalposts, as you demonstrate in this very thread.  First, there is no way to write an article on this subject since there will be no secondary sources found.  Secondary source found.  Well, they don't provide synthesis.  Article providing synthesis pointed out.  Well, there aren't that many of them.  Multiple sources found.  Well, they aren't in depth coverage.  To which I retort that the Forbes article verifies everything that the article says.  Yet still we have delete votes being cast on the basis of the impossibility of finding articles providing synthesis.  Talk about being factually wrong.  If the article has a crime, besides its existance as documentation of "fanboy cruft", is that it elaborates on these points using primary sources to provide context.  This can be fixed, if it needs to be.  But for instance, using google groups as a primary source to provide a post count demonstrating levels of activity is entirely appropriate, according to my reading of policy.  Akerkhof 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "goalpost" has always been the same: add reliable secondary sources to the article. No one has done this.  All that has happened to the article over the last week is that the "History" section was removed.  No one has actually  sourced anything in the article. People have been claiming this article is improvable, yet no one has actually done so.  --Phirazo 16:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is going to keep going in circles. Can a sysop please close this?  --Phirazo 00:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a really bad idea to ask for that. It almost guarantees a closure of "no consensus" even though there is a consensus to delete. All of the keeps are against policy. Jay32183 02:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Says you. What the hell do you call this, this, this, this, and this, then?  If it isn't a widespread and influential Internet phenomenon, how is it that I can find this, this, this, this, and this with a single minute of searching?  This article documents a widespread, influential, and inclusion-worthy phenomenon, albeit poorly.  That calls for a rewrite, not deletion.  And you are still neglecting the indisputable fact that this article has survived three deletion attempts already, making this one a frivolous and redundant waste of time.  Rogue 9 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Message boards containing the debate are not independent of the subject. There is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the topic. The significant coverage is all in primary sources and the secondary sources only confirm the existence. That fails WP:N without question. The only way you can want to keep this article is if you do not understand policy. Jay32183 03:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're telepathic? I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you know my own thoughts better than I do.  Anyway, do you not read?  Forbes, Salon, and the Knight Ridder news service are all independent of each other, and last I checked "multiple" meant "more than one."  It's time to end this ridiculous quadruple jeopardy, if nothing else so I don't have to put up with you sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending this whole thing doesn't exist.  Because as long as we're pretending to be psychic, I might point out that the nominator's statements earlier in this debate point to the motivations for initiating this discussion being summed up by personal dislike.  I mean, dismissing it as a "nerd argument" is supposed to mean something in the context of whether or not to keep it?  Come on, now.  Rogue 9 04:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The part you keep missing is "significant coverage". It needs to be covered in depth. Multiple sources mentioning something is not the same as multiple sources giving significant coverage. There is no significant coverage independent of the debate. Forbes does not have significant coverage of "Star Trek versus Star Wars". Jay32183 05:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling someone on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is only really relevant when that is the only reason to delete. --Phirazo 12:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep please why is it original research it is very helpful as a comparison yuckfoo 05:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If we compare what can be referenced from the sources given to date (even including those links above to which my "requiring registration" objection still applies) against the current content of the article, about all we can really verify is the first sentence. To take the Forbes article as an example, this does provide verification for the existence of a SWvsST debate... but not for anything else. The Forbes article itself goes on to compare things like books printed, awards won etc for each franchise via the slideshow, but it does this without analysis and therefore makes no synthesis. Thus we can't cite this for anything other than the existence of the debate itself. That such a debate is notable (even if only within a minority niche) is provable. Whether this fact is worth an entire Wikipedia article is another matter. EyeSerene TALK 17:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not properly referenced no third party sources. Harlowraman 20:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for an entirely useless vote. Its clear you haven't looked over the article nor have you read this page.  There are 3rd party sources. Alyeska 22:57, 29 August 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.