Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology in Stargate


 * 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   keep. Sources were provided and most editors felt the article should be kept. Merging (if if it's just the important fictional elements) should be discussed on the article's talk page. – sgeureka t•c 20:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Technology in Stargate

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This monstrous article is a result, in part, of merging at least eleven other articles into it. All that content has led to an incredibly detailed, in-universe discussion supported by 110 references - all of which are episodes of the series, and don't at all support the topic's independent notability. I don't believe there is any justification for this independent article to exist; there just aren't any reliable sources to support it. Maybe once a few people write books discussing the scientific viability of the franchise's universe we can revisit the subject? otherlleft 18:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Well there is a precedent for this type of fan-based list of trivia, especially with Star Trek (for example, Shields (Star Trek)). But the difference with Star Trek is a universe of third-party literature. It a shame that a large number of fans put so much work into this Stargate article, but they'll have to come up with references other than the episodes themselves. If such sources exist, they must be added to this article and then in can stand with similar stuff in WP concerning Star Trek, Star Wars, etc. Otherwise, the people who have put this article together would be well-served to move it to a Stargate fan site which for now would be a better home for all of the work they've done. Doomsdayer520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Stargate is a notable franchise, and this information (which meets V much better than most such lists) would be too much to merge into the main article. Jclemens (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, there's more of a problem sourcing this than I originally thought. While "stargate technology" gets plenty of hits, some of them are for a CIA project, some are regarding the myth predating the movie and subsequent series, some are for a digital technology company, and some are for are for a PC technology.  Filtering all that through quickly, here are some choice results from Google Books:
 * Comparing to Star Trek technologies
 * Comparisons to multiple Sci Fi Franchises, and
 * a whole book on SG1
 * Beyond that, we have a number of other seemingly good Google Books hits:, , , . I could really use some help adding these refs to the article, so I've flagged it for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't believe that the nominator has properly engaged with the topic per our deletion process as there is no relevant discussion at the article's talk page and it takes just a moment to find a relevant source such as this - a comprehensive glossary of Stargate props, gadgets and macguffins which is much the same as our article. This is the sort of book which the nomination says does not exist and so the reason to delete is rebutted.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Apparently I created this article, but right now it looks like your "comprehensive glossary" would be better left outside the purview of Wikipedia. The sources might as well be completely deleted, because they only cite the episode, and there are barely any external references. I think that the "important" technology (e.g. with external references) could be moved to the series page, and the rest be put on a fan-site.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete but merge it into the stargate universe. I would support a strong userification argument here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Jclemens has convinced me; it's too big for a merge back in and I think it's a legit fork of a pretty large subject area. I wouldn't want to see a huge expanse of these articles for every show (Technology in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, for example) but this one is ok. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There wasn't really any appreciably different technology in Buffy or Angel.  In Stargate, however, the expansion of technology available to earth, from SG-1 S1 to SGU S1, has been a large part of the evolution of the story.  I actually went back and started watching Stargate (all of it) once I got into SGU last fall.  Rather than one-off MacGuffins, things like hyperdrive are often introduced long before they're reliably available to Earth.  I'm up to SG1/S8 SGA/S1 now, and I desperately want to fix this without spoiling the unwatched seasons (6.5ish)... Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would result in far too long and unweildy an article. Given the above listed sourcing, why not just keep it? Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, and if it must be deleted, ensure content is migrated to other articles first. It is a good compendium of information, in line with Star Trek, etc. See Jclemens's argument. I do agree the article needs a good clean-up, but it is an excellent compendium of information, albeit somewhat clumsy. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as Colonel Warden points out, this nomination fails WP:BEFORE, and was not tagged (third bullet), talk page discussion (seventh bullet), and did not check sourcing concerns (ninth bullet, addressed earlier here). This nomination, beyond the keep-delete arguments, was ill-posed in the first place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerhawkvok (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, rather than attacking the nominator, why don't you just help out by improving the article with the sources I found so far? It's going to be a few days before I have ProQuest access again, but once I get that, I should be up to my eyeballs in references. Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't mean to attack the nominator (though I do feel the nomination was not justified). I've taken only a very cursory look at what you've linked, but I don't want to work on changes if this article is destined for the digital trashbin. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Third party literature exists for this. The technology is stargate is a key part of the programmes, hence the number of articles on the subject. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as the preferred general solution for topics like this. The extent to which an main article will need this will vary--it's not an automatic subarticle. And there will still be instances where a particular piece of technically might merit an article, though I;d expect them to be rare.    DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable aspect of the series, and a valid content fork. When there is too much valid information to fit comfortably in the main article, side articles should be created.   D r e a m Focus  12:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Stargate. I noticed all of the "references" are links to episode articles here at Wiki. Without external third party sources I don't think this article can stand on its own. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Since when is 8 keeps/merges, and 3 deletes (including the nom) grounds for a relist? Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ... especially since this AfD has been vandalized twice by a person or persons who wants it deleted. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ditto: the consensus seems very clear. already. Perhaps this ewas just an error, because I doubt an admin would relist just because of not liking the consensus and hoping for more opposite arguments.     DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (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.