Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Naked Now (TNG episode)

The Naked Now (TNG episode)
The Naked Now (TNG episode) was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep.

Please read this before voting. This page has no potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Wikipedia articles are neither encomia/fan pages, nor critical pans. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. But of course critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations.

The page in question is about the second episode of the television show Star Trek, The Next Generation. It is not a biography about an art work, but a mere syopsis of a Star Trek episode, and it has little potential to become encyclopedic because it was not a notable work on its own, and did not affect society in any observable way.

There is a Star Trek Wiki at http://www.memory-alpha.org, where articles like this would be appropriate. Please read this. --NoPetrol 04:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. One of the most notable STTNG episodes.  Gamaliel 06:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are lots of kinds of encyclopedias: general, scientific, biographical, and also entertainment. There are entire encyclopedias about Star Trek, so this can clearly be encyclopedic. It's not Encyclopedia Britannica kind of content, but it makes good Sci-Fi Encyclopedia content. Wikipedia can be all sorts of encyclopedias. It doesn't hurt anything by its presence here. DreamGuy 08:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Xezbeth  09:47, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. And I don't agree that only "critical analysis of art is welcome" since criticism would, by its very nature, be POV. NPOV synopsis-based articles are the best way for Wikipedia to handle individual episodes.  BTW I'm a member of the WikiProject Holmes which aims to have an article for every Sherlock Holmes short story ever written.  If you start banning the Trek articles, how long before we're next?  P Ingerson 12:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't make the rules... --NoPetrol 12:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And there's nothing here that breaks the rules. Your point being?  P Ingerson 13:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep the episode is properly placed in context with reference to the original series - if that is not encyclopedic, what is? Dull as I found most of TNG, the importance of Star Trek within SF in general and television SF in particular is unarguable. Icundell 12:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in the sense that stuff cannot be moved over to Memory Alpha because differences in licensing. One is on GFDL and the other is on Creative Commons License. I am not a lawyer so can someone senior advise if this is okay?--JuntungWu 13:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let me give a separate reason for each of the related entries. First: Wiki is not paper. We can afford to have this. JRM 17:26, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
 * Keep this and all the other episodes listed at the same time and for the same reasons. See Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion if you didn't follow the link before. Andrewa 18:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, tricky one. I'm going to have to vote Merge and Redirect into Star Trek The Next Generation Episodes. --fvw *  19:48, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
 * Keep. Delete nominator for blatant and deliberate violation of Deletion policy - David Gerard 23:01, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. The web is not lacking in Star Trek episode guides. -- Walt Pohl 06:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I admittedly am a Star Trek fan, so admins should bear that in mind when counting votes; however, I would like to make a few points. First of all, while I wish NoPetrol had only listed one article to "test the waters," I don't think he deserves such censure or has violated policy (although reading Wiki is not paper would have been helpful. In general, I don't think "fancruft" is necessarily a bad thing. To respond briefly to the points he raised on the talk page:
 * 1) I don't think that having articles on episodes will destroy Wikipedia, nor do I think it will destroy the search function.
 * No, of course Wikipedia should not and could not have an article on everything anyone has ever created. Yet is does include works that people have created, including an article on itself. Whether one is a fan or not, there is no denying that Star Trek has had a significant impact on society, whereas urine-writing and second-grade short stories most likely have not.
 * 1) In regards to "That article was deleted, and rightfully so, because it was about something that I just made up, and it was not relevant to anything. These Star Trek articles should be deleted for the same reason [because they were something that someone just made up, and are not relevant to anything]," I agree that it something that (many people) created, but one could not seriously argue that Star Trek episodes are not relevant to anything. That you fear harm from "rabid Star Trek fans" as you put it underscores your awareness of the large impact they have had.
 * 2) Your World War II analogy ("Yes, Star Trek is notable, but to warrant the amount of detail about it that Wikipedia has, Star Trek would have to have had a greater impact on society than World War II") is flawed. Star Trek and World War II are not in competition for a finite amount of space. Both can be expanded. I also think that it is hard to compare the impacts of two different entities. Additionally, sometimes one subject has more information that can be written about it, even if it less important. I could write far more about World War II than I could about the development of spoken language in hominids, yet I feel the latter is far more important.
 * 3) Going to high school is a notable part of many people's lives, as you mention, and yes, Wikipedia does have a page about high schools. Furthermore, I am unaware of the Wikipedia policy against specific high schools (and we do have a fair number of such articles that have survived VFD). I apologize for the length of this comment but I wanted to ensure all of the nominator's concerns were addressed. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 10:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll vote Merge into an appropriate season guide. This is the appropriate way to deal with such things in my opinion, although I can see there are far too many Star Trek obsessives to win this argument. Average Earthman 12:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, merge articles such as this into a season guide or similar. Hoary 05:35, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * Merge this and all other season one TNG episodes into a single season guide. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy against doing so. There are other articles devoted to individual episodes of other Trek series such as Enterprise, as well as individual books in a series (see James Bond). If Wikipedia's admin wants to cast a blanket rule, that's their perogative. (Cutting and pasting for all TNG episode-related VfD, apologies for duplication) 23skidoo 04:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Dbenbenn 18:26, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Its abhorrent the way that Wikipedia deletionist crusaders attempt to wipe out information about Star Trek, high schools and other controversial/political organizations they aren't interested in (or disagree with).  GRider\talk 23:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Michael L. Kaufman 04:51, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Plain ol' keep, as with all the ST episodes below. Dan100 10:54, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Holodoctor1 11:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Newfoundglory 12:22, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Other people who found this page before myself have provided excellent reasons for why this article should not be deleted. I would like to add that I hope this type of request for widespread deletion will be restricted in the future. Apparently, many people (with nice writing skills) thought that Wikipedia needed such articles and decided to create them, and for one person to come along and propose to delete them all is a little _______ (OK, it's a lot ________ :), in my opinion! KJen74 00:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.