Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) (3rd 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 delete. Both sides raise good points below, but after reading through the arguments multiple times I found that the arguments for deletion all echoed the same point--specifically, a failure to demonstrate real-world notability--while the arguments for keeping the article ranged from its importance within the Star Trek universe to the sheer scope of the information involved to speculation that reliable sources should exist. However, as no sources have emerged addressing the issues of notability brought up by the deletion comments, I consider this more pressing issue to remain unsolved and thus consider the policy-based arguments for discussion as being sufficient to establish a consensus to delete.

As a disclaimer, I did not examine either the precedent cases nor the previous AfD arguments--this close is based on my interpretation of the arguments as presented below. Finally, I (or, I imagine, most of the admins who participated in the discussion) will be more than happy to provide a copy of the text to anyone who wants to userfy or transwiki the content. -- jonny - m t  06:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a faction in the fictional Star Fleet Universe. My reasoning for deletion goes that while SFU may be notable, the factions and races within it are hardly so. I cite two precedents: Articles for deletion/Interstellar Concordium (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Lyran, both closed earlier today. Jobjörn (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note the difference between United Federation of Planets and United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe).


 * Delete, more gamecruft. The SFU should start a Wikia for this. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete this sci fi nomenclature has no place here, it is 100% original research anyways which makes me merciless in my vote. Transwiki to the Star Trek wiki for the losers there to have fun withNewAtThis (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, be civil. Secondly, you can't speedy delete an article that has survived 2 AfDs. --SmashvilleBONK! 01:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. newatthis is a fairly obvious sockpuppet of a banned user.  Wikidemo (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete for lacking real-world notability; transwiki if there is actually an appropriate place for it. Terraxos (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major component of the series background.I recognize this is about the non-0canon elements, but the non-canon material on this is so extensive that articles like this are justified. DGG (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The organization within the scope of the original Star Trek universe is notable. Within the scope of a spin-off game?  Not so notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars, i.e. notability to a real-world audience, plenty of references, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia”, of which there are many published books, concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note the difference between United Federation of Planets and United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe). Jobjörn (talk) 05:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show me any references from reliable sources to the information in this article? Jobjörn (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for one reason and one reason only: there are no independent secondary sources about this topic, not even a mention. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With all the fantasy and sci fi magazines out there, I doubt there are no secondary sources. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sci-fi magazines mostly discuss literature, television and movies - not spin-off computer game factions. Also, fanzines are usually self-published, and therefore not WP:RS. But, if you can find a source, I'll keep maintaining an open mind! Jobjörn (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It could take longer than a week long AfD (for my part, I've been focusing on mining the latest GamePro for any relevant sources to add to a variety of game related articles) to effectively go through all potential sources and as Wikipedia does not have a deadline, editors should be given the chance to do so. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the Deletion policy does not apply? There is a deadline now. Take the article into your userspace and work on it there. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Only copy vios, libel, child pornography, my space esque articles, and hoaxes need urgently be deleted in a week, rather than allowing the article a chance to improve. A verifiable and notable topic that multiple good faith editors see value in and on multiple AfDs does not.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: two more related precedents: Articles for deletion/Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) (2nd nomination) (delete), Articles for deletion/Orion Pirates (delete). Jobjörn (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change and just because other articles have been deleted that seem similar, since we cannot review those articles here for comparative purposes, we cannot really cite them as precedents as we do not know now what their quality was versus the article currently under discussion. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter whether they are precedents or not, they are related. Comment above was merely a FYI comment. Jobjörn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you show us the articles so we can see what their quality was like at time of deletion versus this article? Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, as they have been deleted and I am not an administrator. However, you could see Star Fleet Universe/Interstellar Concordium and Star Fleet Universe/Lyran -- temporary copies of the first "precedents" mentioned in my nomination above. You could also ask an administrator to restore the information in the deleted articles, I know that DGG is willing to help with this. Jobjörn (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, could someone please restore the information so we can see for comparative purposes? Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with DGG on this one; the amount of information contained on this topic makes this article more than justified. GlassCobra 16:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The amount of information is hardly relevant, and I don't think that was what DGG meant. Jobjörn (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * well, that is approximately what I meant. Usually we pretty much ignore non-canon as better suited to a specialized wiki, but Star Trek non-canon is so notable in its own right that this is one of the relatively few cases we should include it. DGG (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If it contains a good deal of valuable information, we must keep it. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And what qualifies as "valuable information"? "The Treaty of the Neutral Zone that ended the Romulan War defined the Federation border as being 4,750 parsecs from the center of the Primary Member Zone"? If I thought the article contained valuable information (per the definition "encyclopedic content"), I would not have nominated it in the first place. Jobjörn (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is not seem like valuable information to you may be valuable information for someone researching this kind of work of fiction. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Valuable information" is subjective, it depends on the point of view of the person accessing the information. Therefore, stating that an article must be kept because it contains "valuable information" is ridiculous. To decide whether or not an article should be deleted, we must instead use objective criteria - in this case, we must decide whether the article's topic (the fictional faction "United Federation of Planets" in the Star Trek-offshoot "Star Fleet Universe") is notable (per Notability) or not. And I think not, as there are no reliable sources independent of the subject. As proving that there are no sources is impossible, the burden of proof lies on the one who claims there are sources - proving that there are some is easy, provided there actually are any. Jobjörn (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would much rather err on the side of keeping something that is potentially useful than deleting it and gaining nothing. If even one donor or good faith contributor finds this relevant, we should humor them. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that we should keep articles to please potential donors? Wow. Jobjörn (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many reasons to keep the article. There is no advantage to deleting it.  Even in a worst case scenario we would redirect without deletion to preserve editors' public contribs. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this book search? I hope you are aware that ALL of these books deal with United Federation of Planets, while this afd is about United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)? Jobjörn (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with nom. No real world notability, gamecruft.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PERNOM and ITSCRUFT. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mostly plot Summary, with no real-world notability asserted, and unsourced. Black Kite 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of sources about the game version. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is not paper and the nominator gives an invalid reason for deletion. The factions and races within it do not have to be notable, per WP:NNC. And I would hardly call two AFDs that closed earlier today a precedent. --Pixelface (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have in total nominated six SFU-faction articles for deletion. The other five have been closed as delete. Furthermore, I don't see how WP:NNC is relevant - it clearly states Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, which is what we are discussing here. WP:NNC deals with the content of the article, which is not relevant as to whether it should be kept or deleted. Jobjörn (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment and the nominator is just copy-pasting their reason for deletion from other AFDs  which closed 6 days ago. If the nominator cannot take the time to tell us why this article should be deleted, I see no reason to take this nomination seriously. This looks like WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering all the replies I have made to the various comments to this afd, it should be quite obvious that I have put a lot of time into this. That I copy-pasted the nomination text was because the argument I made for deletion of those two articles, and three others also nominated and deleted, is exactly the same. That while SFU is notable, factions within are not. I have yet to see anyone actually provide a reliable third-party source even mentioning the United Federation of Planets as depicted in the Star Fleet Universe, so far all attempts to do so have been confusing references to material dealing with the "real" United Federation of Planets. Also, this is not a bad-faith or make-a-point-nomination - I nominated two other similar articles to begin with, not wanting to disrupt the system by nominating lots of articles and once. Finally, I have only listed this article for deletion once, and that was soon after I stumbled upon the articles related to the Star Fleet Universe for the first time. I had no hand in the earlier deletion discussions (although I have of course read them). I fail to see why you should not take this nomination seriously - it is indeed very serious, and you should assume good faith. Jobjörn (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep nominator does not provide sufficient reasons for deletion. This is topic covered in several published works over 20 years of nearly continuous publication. Web Warlock (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are not confusing this with the "real" UFP? Jobjörn (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what this is. I have many of the books for the game. Web Warlock (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Do you have any third party references? Jobjörn (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. And I am adding them now and will continue tomorrow morning. Web Warlock (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: No denying, White Dwarf (magazine) is a reliable third party source. Nevertheless, I don't think it's that easy - one, is UFP the subject of the articles in the magazine? two, are there any other secondary sources? If the answer is no to either one of these questions, notability can not yet be established, and so the article should be deleted. Jobjörn (talk) 21:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes they are. You seem to really want this AfD to go through, is there some bias you have against this article or, given you mentioned your other AfDs, SciFi articles in general? Is this a bad faith nom? Web Warlock (talk) 21:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, definitely not. I love science fiction, I maintain a personal library of some ~100 sci-fi books. Star Trek is pretty much the only TV show I ever watch. And I'm off to a gaming convent in less than a month... I haven't tried any of the SFU games, but I think I'd like them. However, that I'd probably like them is not relevant. I nominated the article for a very simple reason, I do not think the subject of it (fictional faction of a not all too well-known rpg) is not notable enough to merit inclusion in this encyclopedia of ours. That I nominated the other five articles is because they are pretty much exactly like this, just a different faction. In an earlier AfD, I suggested a List of factions and races in the Star Fleet Universe, but it did not seem to win any approval - consensus was basically "go to hell". I am defending this afd so vehemently because, well, there's a reason as to why I made it and that reason is still around. Also, keeping this and deleting the other five would be quite inconsistent. Jobjörn (talk) 21:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If it looks like consensus has changed from this discussion, we could always just Deletion review the other five to see if it has changed for them as well. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not look like consensus has changed to me. Jobjörn (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this AfD is currently at "no consensus" status, while I obviously believe the keep side is providing the more compelling argument, there certainly is not any general agreement, but I don't recall participating in the others, and I may have been another keep voice, meaning those might have been "no consensus" as well. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Whatever the outcome, could you please provide an explanation of the rationale behind your decision? Jobjörn (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep because Star Trek is a massive franchise and this seems to be a very important piece of it. – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  01:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DGG, and it does not appear as though consensus has changed. MrPrada (talk) 04:43, 8 April 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.