Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporal Cold War


 * 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.  Singu larity  03:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporal Cold War

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of about half of the plot of the Star Trek television show Enterprise. As the article on the show and all the episode articles cover this information in greater detail, there is no need for this one since the Temporal Cold War asserts no signifience outside of the show and its episodes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this subject is covered in 22 books according to Google, seems to convey notability. Atyndall93  |  talk  03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * About half of which are Star Trek fiction, and a handful do not relate to Star Trek at all. 137.111.143.140 (talk) 04:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is embarrassing when anon users know more about policy and the uselessness of random google searches than regular users do. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP above appears to have not looked at the results in very much detail. Out of the 16 results I saw, five - "The Physics of Star Trek", "American Science Fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate and Beyond", "Science Fiction Television: A History", "Supernatural fiction writers: contemporary fantasy and horror" and "Beyond Representation: Television Drama and the Politics and Aesthetics of Identity" - seem to contain some mention of the Temporal Cold War in an out-of-universe context. Of the rest, ten were Star Trek novels, and one was a coincidental hit on a Congressional hearing transcript. Those five should suffice for a keep, though. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 07:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. The IP again (but on a different computer). I may have been slightly off in my breakdown. Lets try again: The Physics of Star Trek has no preview, so I cannot comment further; Science Fiction Television: A History mentions Enterprise and the TCW on pages 186 and 187. All I can gather fom reading these two pages is that the TCW is a recurring plot point, a threat to humanity (but what isn't in Enterprise?), and the show's only dalliance in time travel; American Science Fiction TV, has a single part-sentance mention of the TCW on page 10, in a paragraph on time travel in science fiction. Basically: "sci-fi uses time-travel as a theme and plot device. Enterprise used this."; Supernatural fiction writers: contemporary fantasy and horror has only one hit in the text for the phrase TCW, which appears from the snippet view to be a 1-2 paragraph summary of the plot. I count eight unique fiction books (one of which duplicates for nine). A tenth fiction book has nothing to do with Enterprise, unless the episodes I missed dealt with the Continumn, Durgan, Daka, and Cedeo. I acknowledge the Congress document as being one of the results. A Google Scholar search for the phrase in quotes gives only 5 hits... two to aforementioned books and three to unrelated articles. Based on this, I do not believe that a reliably sourced and verifiable article of decent (<stub) size can be written without becoming a glorified plot summary. However, because "Temporal Cold War" is a likely search term, it should be redirected to the article on the series, linking directly to the article's plot section if possible. There is as much of a summary there as appears possible with the current Google-accessible scholarship on the subject, and the prominent link to the list of episodes will allow further investigation of the subject. 211.30.232.226 (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The IP above appears to have researched the matter, weighed the evidence, and come to a conclusion based upon the actual evidence--something I've seen very little of on Wikipedia. Nice. If I were doing anything useful or worthwhile on Wikipedia I would change my voted based upon this.  However I'm not.  So I do want to point out, instead, that the web is not the only, preferred, or necessarily best source for researching serious topics.  --Blechnic (talk) 01:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources makes this article a bunch of original research. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep lots of sources provided above. Hobit (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The discussion above is just based upon Google Books. Google News has a bunch of hits too.  Also, these searches are just on the exact phrase and there may be other sources using a different form of words such as Enterprise Time War. Since we only need two sources to establish notability, we have more than enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the tests of notability of a fictional creation is whether it hss any real-world significance, and the case can be made for this storyline; it was one of many continuity abberations that the writers of Enterprise inflicted upon the Star Trek franchise. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford. It should never be allowed to go quietly into that good night it attempted to un/re/forward/backward/create.  Mrs. Hitchcock would have been horrified.  --Blechnic (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A major theme in the series, and good to have the material together--much clearer than relying upon episode lists. There's no rule that the different aspects of fiction can't be treated this way for the most notable fictions. Sufficient sources have been listed above. There needs to be a distinction between the treatment appropriate for the most notable and the less notable fictions. DGG (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete - It should probably redirect to the series page. But I know this plotline was the target of a few printed criticisms of the show, and Berman/Braga also did a variety of interviews about the plot line's development -- but those, along with the Coto commentary there now, would be more apt in the series article's section of development and critical reception. The article in its current form is absolute, unadulterated in-universe mostly cruft and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2008 (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.