Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporal Cold War (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   keep. The keep arguments are stronger than the merge/redirect arguments. However, this does not preclude merging if there is consensus to do so on the talk page. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Temporal Cold War
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I believe this article violates Manual of Style (writing about fiction), being a partial plot summary of a fictional work. I have nominated it separately because it contains a "Controversy" section talking about various production details. I do not believe any of the external links in this section, however, to constitute reliable sources. They are links to fan forums or else articles on fan sites and thus do not demonstrate out-of-universe notability. The first nomination (linked to right) was flawed I believe, referencing the number (rather than the quality or type) of google and google books hits. Articles about fiction should be expected to get google books hits, as google books includes fictional works, in-universe works (fan encyclopedias, etc.), and so on. None of the keep voters made an effort to show how any of these hits constituted out-of-universe notability. The article as it stands contains no information cited to reliable published sources demonstrating any out of universe significance at all, let alone notability. Savidan 18:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not agree that this article should be deleted because it is just like any other episode guide for example Stargate, Star Trek Voyager etc. I was looking for just this type of information about the temporal cold war. If there should be any problems with this article than rewrite it but don't delete it because it gives usefull information. 85.150.248.177 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Star Trek: Enterprise.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. But needs a lot of work to make it acceptable. Dheppens (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Star Trek: Enterprise and merge (well-cited -- not the stuff cited to fan forums) production info. there. Article is unnecessarily detailed and OR-/trivia-laden plot regurgitation with insufficient real-world information to sustain an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EEMIV (talk • contribs) 21:33, 20 July 2009
 * Keep. The Temporal Cold War is a very critical part of Star Trek: Enterprise and should deserve its own article (as Dominion War to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine). However, this article definitely needs to be improved.--DrWho42 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Star Trek: Enterprise and merge. There are too many pop culture articles at Wikipedia.  This isn't a sci-fi fan boi site; its an encyclopedia. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to Star Trek: Enterprise. The whole article is completely incompatible with WP:WAF, and if this subject is to be covered, it would be best to start again, starting with the reliable secondary sources.  The content of the page belongs in Memory Alpha if anywhere.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If Colonel Warden or others can find sources to justify a stand-alone article, the article still needs to be started from scratch. The existing content is not based on these new sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - significant aspect of the Enterprise series which appeared in multiple episodes. The lack of references should be addressed, of course. Artw (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep If the nominator wants Google Books references then he should research and add them rather than bringing the article here - AFD is not cleanup. I have added such a reference to show how it's done.  Please see WP:BEFORE for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I applaud Col Warden finding some real-world commentary, it is insufficient to retain a separate article. That production rationale/blurb is easily -- and most appropriately -- merge-able into the overall series article. --EEMIV (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We're only here to decide whether to push the delete button or not and we both agree that we shouldn't. Detailed consideration of how this material may be improved and presented alongside other aspects of Star Trek/Enterprise is a matter of ordinary content editing which we don't do here.  Again, this is  covered by our deletion policy, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Colonel Warden (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Some references seem worth keeping as part of the production of Enterprise perhaps, but nothing really seems to establish this article as keeping in it's own right. The google news search seems to be full of Trek sites or odd DVD reviews for example. Alastairward (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable part of a very notable series. The number of episodes listed as involving the Temporal Cold War story arc, add to its notability.  This wasn't just some passing mention of an event somewhere.   D r e a m Focus  16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with Dream Focus, Artw and DrWho42. The article has its issues but the subject is passably notable to meet the guidelines. From Google Books: .— Rankiri (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2009 (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.