Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship Ajax


 * 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   speedy deleted at primary author's request (WP:CSD). Kubigula (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Starship Ajax

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Cannot find any reliable sources to support notability of this fan project. Singularity42 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I run a website which tracks Star Trek Fan Films, Star Trek Reviewed, vis: http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/ Ajax is notable because it is the descendant of Starship Exeter, which was one of the first high quality Star Trek Fan Films, although it has produced only a single complete episode.  Work on the second episode reportedly continues.  This is my webpage on Starship Exeter:   http://startrekreviewed.blogspot.com/2009/06/21.html .  In spite of Exeter's modest output, I can report that this page, with only a single completed fan film, is always among the top 10 most visited pages on the website in any month, (See http://www.blogger.com/stats2.g?blogID=3781097081383681822#overview,LAST_30_DAYS and the ).  The set used in Exeter is being used for Ajax.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbreader (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Blogs, forums, and facebook pages do not meet the criteria for WP:Reliable Sources. Singularity42 (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please Keep. The Facebook Page for Ajax does have Production report videos posted which are news updates for the interested members. This information is shared amoungst 4 other sites...Safe Harbor, Trek BBS, Starship Farrugut Forums, And Trek United. So there is a history and some video to co-oborate the Ajax entry here. Robert Simmons100Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Existence/corroboration is not the issue here. Compliance with WP:Notability is.  The general rule is that this needs to be covered by multiple, third-party, reliable sources in a non-trivial way.  Blogs and facebook pages are not reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Would my providing the phone numbers to you of the related people Barbreader mentioned so you can talk to them yourself...as in Jimm Johnson who loaned us the sets and Josha Johnson the brother who brokered the use of the sets. Or John Hughes who asked me to handle this project for him. Happy to provide what you may ask for. We are new so not much exists other than the word of those involved outside of their blogs who own the Exeter sets out on loan to us. Robert Simmons100 Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Please read WP:Notability, WP:Reliable Sources, and WP:Verifiability. Singularity42 (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this is new as a project would occasional exception in :Reliable Sources apply if co-oborated by other tenured and high profile standing members of the Trek community do so here? Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No. If it is new, then it is probably not WP:Notable yet. (Please note that notability for Wikipedia policies means something different from the every-day use of the word. I am asking you again, please read the policy.) Singularity42 (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as notability goes...the fact that Ajax secured the sets despite many others were not even allowed to talk to Jimm and Josh Johnson is a feat in of itself since many have wanted to contact them to use the Exeter sets. In the Fan Trek community it has been pointed out that his is in of itself is a masterstroke. Randy Landers of Orion Press would be a noteworthy person to consult at to the Notability of the Ajax production by that accomplishment alone tees it up for the "A" list of Trek fanfilms.Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have WP:Reliable Sources for that? Forums, blogs, and facebook do not count. Singularity42 (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Why should I bother? I guess it will be best in my trying to do this all over again after we hopefully have released our first episode late next year. I think it is apparent that we will have to fight to justify this then as well to meet the prohibitively steep criteria for a fledgling project such as ours. And i have no desire to fight or ruffle feathers, and am eager to accomodate any way I can to meet what you ask. When that time comes I will assign someone else to do this since I don't want the hassle of having to go through this twice. Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The only source I can provide to you is the head of Starship Exeter. I figured he would be a relaible source what we did with his sets from Starship Exeter. And that would be Jimm Johnson.Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Would the head of other Trek fan Films suffice as WP:Reliable Sources to their opinion if we are WP:Notable?Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you read any of the policies/guidelines I linked to? Singularity42 (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have browsed them to get and idea as to what you are asking. I seem to be coming up short.Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
 * WP:Reliable Sources: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Questionable sources are those ... with no editorial oversight."
 * WP:Verifiability: "..all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question." "...self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."
 * Singularity42 (talk)

Jsut go ahead and delete the thing....this isn't worth the hassle.Robert Simmons100 (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that will be up to an administrator. Singularity42 (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2011 (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.