Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion/Starfleet's safety protocols

Cause for listing: Complete lack of sources, reads like fancruft and original research.

Proposed Actions

1)Source the article ourselves.

Support:

Oppose:
 * Too infuriating. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 00:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

2)Failing that, try to engage the Star Trek WP community to source it.

Support: Oppose:
 * Since the Trekkies know the episodes where these claims can be made they can probably source the article best. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 00:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of knowing the episodes but of having the secondary sources to support notability, but they are the most likely people to have them. Citing the episodes alone is irrelevant. Any piece of fancruft can do that. Moreschi Deletion! 15:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

3)Failing that, merge with a suitable article. Deletion is probably not appropriate.

Support:

Oppose:

4)Since some members seem to favor deletion, if an appropriate merge can't be found, delete.

Support:

Oppose:

Discussion
 * Don't know why deletion isn't appropriate. Fancruft, OR, unsourced. Very little in that article is encyclopedic material in the slightest. Merge at best, IMO. Moreschi Deletion! 11:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the article is fully sourced, and as such, it is not original research. The sources are the episodes where the references take place, and they are all named.  We are required to produce sources, but they needn't be online, or even on paper.  Considering that in the case of a tv show the episodes that make up the storyline are the main souce of information, as opposed to extracting it from a fansite's secondary interpretation, which would be unreliable.  And it is verifiable: one only needs to rent the DVD at the nearest Blockbuster or similar &mdash; this is no different then articles on films that provide a summary, or a synopsis of the story: people who wrote that saw the movie, which makes it the primary source (and this usually "goes without saying" in those articles, since people don't really name the movie as the source expressly); and the fact that users create their own synopsis of the movie plot doesn't make it original research, and I don't believe that this claim has ever been made. That said, there's always room for improvement, of course.  This is by no means a claim that the article is perfect as it is.  Redux 11:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With no cites, "It would, however, be logical to conclude, given the dynamics of the shows, that safety protocols would also prevent accidents such as clumsy individuals who might disintegrate their own hands while handling the replicator. Also, it would be possible that any replicator (especially those located in crew quarters) may be able to accept predefined parameters of security, such as an individual who is allergic to any edible substance (peanuts, for instance) preprogramming his replicator not to replicate that substance (peanuts, in the given example) in any of his dishes, even if the original recepe demands it (if the ingredient should be essential for the required dish, replication would be denied altogether). This could prevent an accidental food poisoning. And more generally, since the main computer is able to recognize voice patterns, this programming could be recognized ship-wide, so that any replicator on board will refuse replicating the hazardous substance for that specific person (the sake of example notwithstanding, it must be pointed out that it has been established the availability of intensive prenatal genetic treatment — notably during Star Trek: Voyager, for instance when B'Elanna corrects her baby's spinal cord before birth — so it's feasible that no one in the Star Trek universe has allergies, except for species-specific ones)." is completely original research. Moreschi Deletion! 14:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify further, the above quoted reads like someone's personal opinions, reads like OR, and it is not acceptable for us just to cite primary sources. Secondary ones are required to verify stuff like the above rambling and to support notability, which the article singularly fails to do. It doesn't give a reason why I should care whether anyone in the Star Trek world has allergies or not. Moreschi Deletion! 14:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As Moreschi says, "original research". It may be that there are secondary sources from which to support this, but they aren't referenced. Primary sources are fine, but commentary on them can only come from published materials, not from the viewer's personal impressions. That means that the only things that should be derived from watching TV/listening to radio/reading novels are plot synopses, cast lists, and the like. Unless someone can point to a discussion of this subject in a book, magazine, "making of" DVD, or similar source, the article should be deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above: fancrufty OR that could be usefully moved to AfD. Eusebeus 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreschi was referring to only one of the paragraphs in the article, not the entire article &mdash; which is, as I mentioned, fully sourced and not original research (perhaps to make it clearer, the references could be moved to a separate section at the end, with notes next to the relevant sentences, as it is more commonly done with sources &mdash; as I said, there's always room for improvement). And if that's the case, then simply remove the paragraph in question.  Proposing the deletion of the entire article because of one paragraph is a grosse generalization &mdash; unless that paragraph was all there was in the article, which is isn't, clearly.  This can be done easily.  Redux 13:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "In that line, a holographic weapon cannot kill, because the Holodeck will not simulate the real impact of a phaser discharge, or a bullet's, since simulations of the 20th century seem to be quite popular. Furthermore, poisonous substances will not be replicated accurately (meaning, if the plot of a simulation calls for a character, which might be impersonated by a real life participant, to ingest Cyanide for instance, a substance will appear, but it will be an innocuous one that may resemble the real thing). Accordingly, the safety protocols can also prevent the accurate simulation of the very laws of the natural universe, so that no one can die if during a flight simulation the vehicle crashes or decompresses in outer space, or as another example, it would be impossible to die by jumping off a holographic cliff." - again completely unsourced, again original research. It's not just one paragraph, it's most of the article. And it is not acceptable just to cite primary sources because they do not support notability: secondary sources must be used. Moreschi Deletion! 14:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The principle is the same. By all means, perform a broad cleanup and we will see what we are left with.  A stub is better than no article at all.  Redux 15:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I must also add something else in relation to the final part of your comment: our policy establishes that Wikipedia cannot be a primary source (which equals original research), but we are only required to have a previous secondary source as well if interpretation of a primary source is being done, and that's the point I want to make. We musn't confuse notability with reliable sourcing.  Obviously, we cannot establish, for instance, a person's notability by linking to a primary souce that is unreliable or biased (such as that person's own page on the internet); and we cannot interpret a primary source, introducing new ideas.  Already excluding the questioned passages, this is not the case here clearly: this article addresses a well-known aspect of a fictional universe, fully referenced in the episodes in which they were mentioned.  As a matter of fact, WP:OR, on primary sources, explicitly says Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. In this case, everything said and referenced in the episodes can be easily verified by anyone by simply watching them.  There are no new ideas that were not introduced by those who created the fictional universe in question.  A descriptive statement of what was portrayed in the fictional work, or the mere pointing out of contradictions (which are also easily verified simply by watching two or three episodes &mdash; the sources &mdash; mentioned) is not original research, anymore than writing a synopsis for a movie is, as long as Wikipedia editors are not introducing originally new concepts and ideas that cannot be ascertained by simply watching the work in question (in line with what WP:OR states).  Redux 17:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actions Taken

Redux has removed all unsourced assertations, OR, and conjecture. In cases such as this, where such things ARE clearly talked about in some episodes and where primary sources only seek to describe what is presented and not to project from that point, and where there are no secondary sources, we can use primaries. I think further editing would damage the article and that it's good as it is, although proper cites would probably look prettier. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 18:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)