Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stone Trek (2nd 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   redirect to Star Trek fan productions. The "keep" !votes are weak and do not address the fact that all the sources have only trivial mentions of the subject. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Stone Trek
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. Yes, it was a syfy "site of the week" and yes, a magazine briefly discussed it in an article about Star Trek fan fiction. However, these sources provide very little actual coverage of this project, cited only for brief quotes of the "we like it" variety. Sum mer PhD (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Interesting article, notable, and well-written.   LogicalCreator (talk) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, tangential mentions in context of bigger things ≠ notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. GNews turns up a paywalled, but apparently substantial article about this in the February 17, 2002 Bradenton Herald. GBooks reveals some potential sources although the paywalls make it hard to evaluate how substantial they are, e.g.   If this is not notable enough for its own article, there is at least enough to justify a redirect (keeping the edit history) to the existing entry about this at Star Trek fan productions. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe the sourcing (including those found by Arxiloxos) is enough to indicate notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The references provided aren't enough to establish notability. The one in the magazine was just a rather trivial mention in an article about Star Trek fan works in general, and being picked as the SciFi website of the week is nice but not particularly notable.  Also, the actual link to that reference is dead now anyways.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the references found by Arxiloxos - the film also appears notable enough to be included in an upcoming documentary, as shown by this trailer. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Have you seen the actual sources (beyond the paywalls) that Arxiloxos found? If so, please give some hint of what is substantial about the coverage in them. Yes, the film web cartoon does seem to be mentioned in the forthcoming, non-notable, youtube documentary Backyard Blockbusters. That is not a compelling sign of notability IMO. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Of the sources that Arxiloxos found, only the first one can really be considered to be potentially substantial coverage. The other two, though, as mentioned, are blocked by paywalls, what little we can see of them really looks like its pretty trivial coverage, simply mentioning this series as a singular example amongst others.  But, the simple fact remains that without being able to see the rest of the articles and seeing the complete context of the discussion of Stone Trek, we really can't say that they prove that there is substantial, non-trivial coverage out there.  Its kind of hard to base a keep decision based off of the argument that there might be proof that its notable, without actually seeing the proof.  As for that documentary, there's really nothing to show that it is notable in any way, let alone reliable enough to count as a third party source for this.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2012 (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.