Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems (third nomination)

Response to Ritchy's Strong Keep

 * You could cite hundreds of examples from episodes, and it would still be OR, since the analysis and synthesis of that information is original. The actual number of citations is not relevant, per se - what is important is whether the citations support the conclusions drawn. Almost none of the references I can see in the article are supporting the actual arguments made, but simply verifying other incidental facts. David L Rattigan 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Show me a conclusion drawn on the page which is not supported by the references given. -- Ritchy 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The very first two paragraphs after the introduction state opinions with no sources at all, for example. Sure, they cite the episodes themselves, but by analysing them and giving an opinion of them without a source for his argument, the editor is producing original research. Btw, should we be having a lengthy discussion on here? David L Rattigan 20:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be dense or anything, but I just don't see it. I take it you mean the "cloaking" section of the article, right? The conclusion that is drawn in that section is that there is a clear conflict between "Balance of Terror", where cloaking technology was thought to be only theoretically possible until it was seen working on a Romulan ship (citation is given), and Enterprise, where technology is commonly seen and used on many episodes (a list could be given, I guess), and cloaking Romulan ships are even encountered (a reference is given on that). If there's anything you'd consider "original research" in there, I just don't see it. Next, a popular fan theory accounting for the discrepency is given and debunked based on the episode information. This part of the section is less solid, I recognise that. However, it could easily be deleted, with no impact on the article overall. -- Ritchy 20:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its pertinent to have this discussion to aid in the reaching of a concensus. This article does have a talk page though if you want to discuss specifics, we can add a note to direct people to the talk page for a more indepth discussions of the points?--Crossmr 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually a quick look at the last AFD shows there were 9 in favour of deletion and only 7 in favour of keep. I personally think it should have been deleted instead of a declaration of non consensus. While there are a lot of sources, that isn't the point. The majority of the article is based on unsourcable opinion. While you can easily state, that this person said xx in this episode, the article always goes on to draw conclusions and provide opinioons that "some fans" expressed. This makes the article original research and opinion. This article also has to stand on its own, what other articles exist on wikipedia is immaterial to this discussion, but if you are going to base your argument on that, it shows its weakness. No one is trying to remove every shred of information about Star Trek from wikipedia. They're trying to remove original unsourced opinion that doesn't provide any objective encyclopedic information. Regardless of the source of that opinion and what its formed from, the result is an opinionated article. --Crossmr 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a gross exageration and distortion of fact. A quick read of the page shows only 5 places where fans are mentioned, and in none of them was their opinion used to draw conclusions. They could be deleted right here and now with little impact on the article. The article is far from relying on fan theories, as you try to make it sound. Frankly, the fact you try to misrepresent the article to this extent show how weak your case for deletion is. -- Ritchy 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is only an example of the weasel words used in this article. The article draws conclusions on every point without citing a source for that opinion. Wikipedia is not a place to be drawing conclusions. It is a place to provide facts.--Crossmr 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is not basing the arguments on fan theories, what is the article basing the arguments on? Where have those opinions come from if not from fans? They are certainly not sourced. I am an inclusionist and have no problem with articles from fans about subjects they care about, no matter how obscure. But original research is one of the few official policies Wikipedia has, and this article fails it. David L Rattigan 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying "original research"
Ritchy wrote:
 * I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be dense or anything, but I just don't see it. I take it you mean the "cloaking" section of the article, right? The conclusion that is drawn in that section is that there is a clear conflict between "Balance of Terror", where cloaking technology was thought to be only theoretically possible until it was seen working on a Romulan ship (citation is given), and Enterprise, where technology is commonly seen and used on many episodes (a list could be given, I guess), and cloaking Romulan ships are even encountered (a reference is given on that). If there's anything you'd consider "original research" in there, I just don't see it. Next, a popular fan theory accounting for the discrepency is given and debunked based on the episode information. This part of the section is less solid, I recognise that. However, it could easily be deleted, with no impact on the article overall.

The information taken from episodes is fine. However, when you analyse that information without providing a verifiable source for the analysis, it is Original research. Debunking information, unless the content of the debunking is supported by a source, is original analysis. Whether the reasoning and logic is good or not is besides the point - it is still original research. To get around that you would have to provide more than just info from the episodes - you would have to provide a credible source that actually debunked the theory in the way you described. David L Rattigan 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if one episode says A, and another episode says not A, is it original research to point out that there's a contradiction between them? Because that's basically what the article does. Granted, it's not always as clear as A vs. not A, but the principle is there. -- Ritchy 22:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * to me the article always seems to go on to draw conclusions though and justify everything on opinion that is the problem. --Crossmr 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not. It cites the two episodes that say A and not A, with quotes usually. That's not an opinion. It then points out the problem. That may be drawing a conclusion, in so far as you can consider saying that two contradicting sources of information are contradicting each other is "drawing a conclusion", but it's still not an opinion. -- Ritchy 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Problem is, the article does not simply stop at A and not A. It begins with this and then goes on to propose arguments for and against the inconsistencies and analyses the data to suggest potential harmonizations - all without citations. This kind of unverified analysis is precisely what Original research forbids. David L Rattigan 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The word "alleged"

 * Another concern is even in the title of this article "alleged". By who? The fans? Is there a credible source or is just a conclusion drawn from message boards which isn't considered a credible source for basing content on. --Crossmr 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "alleged" in the title simply means that there is no official concensus on whether or not there are continuity errors in ENT. It is not uncommon to use the word "alleged" in Wikipedia article titles when the article deals with debated or uncertain information - for example, List of alleged al-Qaeda members and Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible. -- Ritchy 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So then you want to use Wikipedia to draw that conclusion? --Crossmr 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends. Do you think the people who wrote the List of alleged al-Qaeda members wanted Wikipedia to conclude that these people are terrorists? Or that the people who wrote the Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible wanted Wikipedia to take an anti-Christian stance? -- Ritchy 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * again I'm going to point out that we're not discussing other articles. Though I do believe there is a policy or guideline on speculation somewhere (which I can't seem to find right now) that requires a certain level of interest for speculation. Certainly not everyone within the trek communities cares to speculate on it, and its very unlikely anyone outside it would care at all. On the other hand things like Al qaeda and the bible draw much higher attention and interest. I don't believe Star Trek as popular as it is, on this particular issue reaches anywhere near the level of interest Al qaeda or the bible have.  As much as a few hardcores treat it like that... --Crossmr 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * and it should be pointed out both articles you cite are disputed as well one for PoV and cleanup, the other for factuality. Again, not the point, but they certainly don't make any kind of case for keeping this article. --Crossmr 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to compare, much less equal, all these pages. I'm simply pointing out that having articles with the word "alleged" in the title isn't the unthinkable scandal that you made it sound like. -- Ritchy 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Its not like the word alleged is the only problem that exists with the article as a whole. Its just part of the whole package of issues with this page. --Crossmr 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's just typical of your approach to this VfD. Find something, no matter how trivial, like the word "alleged" in the title or a handful of references to fans that could easily be deleted, then blow it out of proportions. Then, with no regards for proper procedues (which would dictate that you put up a "cleanup" or "NPOV" notice or any other you feel is needed, then discuss it on the talk page) and no regards for past VfD, you start screaming DELETE! at the top of your lungs. I should probably be reporting you for vandalism. What you're doing is certainly more subtle than the typical vandal who just walks in and replaces entire pages with the word "poop" until he's banned, but it sums up to the same thing. -- Ritchy 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing worth saving in this article in the context of this encyclopedia. While the article is good, it just doesn't have a place here. Cleaned up, PoV or otherwise. This is why it was put up for AFD. If memory alpha doesn't mind OR articles like this, then it has a home there. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive collection of everything ever written. --Crossmr 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Responses to Nae'blis's keep

 * All of the speculation, conclusions, and justifications would need to be removed. But even removed that, that doesn't stop it from being fancruft and having only a small group interested in it. --Crossmr 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Smaller than Battle of Chios or Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz? Wikipedia is not paper, and the continuity problems are a LARGE part of the problems with Enterprise. We don't delete articles because they're imperfect, we fix them. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither of those articles are based on a fictional series, and the Battle of Chios is a stub, and if that is all that will be written on it, it should be merged with a larger article. Either way, we're not here to discuss other articles, we're discussing this one.--Crossmr 22:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article doesn't exist in a vacuum. It exists as part of Wikipedia, among millions of other pages. Trying to single it out for an alleged problem found and ignored in a number of other pages is rather weak. Especially when you explicitly try to ignore all the other pages because "we're talking about this one". -- Ritchy 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * People have been trying to fix it up for a year. It hasn't worked and there's no reason to assume it will in future. - Hayter 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The article has been greatly improved over the past year. Just look what it used to be like a year ago: . Given a few more edits, it can be a great article. That is, if people like Crossmr actually help, instead of just declaring that Trek isn't encyclopedia material and trying to delete all related pages. This attitude is against the very founding principles of Wikipedia. -- Ritchy 20:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, while the style may have improved, it does not seem to have improved in the one vital area, ie providing legitimate sources for what right now is original research. You say Crossmr hasn't helped, but what can someone without the knowledge do? It's such a specialized area, there isn't much scope for anyone without the specialized knowledge to help resolve that problem. Hayter is quite right when he points out that a year has not helped. As an inclusionist who thinks "notability" sucks, I don't have a problem with so-called "fancruft" - I do have a problem with original research, however, which is one of the few things expressly forbidden by Wiki policy. David L Rattigan 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did I declare trek wasn't encyclopedic? I put forth an AFD on my belief that this particular article was not encyclopedic. If you event things its really easy to be outraged isn't it?--Crossmr 22:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny you should ask, when in the same edit where you asked the question you defended other articles as not "based on a fictional series". You also made several mentions of how the topic of this article interested only a minority of people - a strange comment to make in and of itself, as every single page on Wikipedia can be said to be of interest to only a minority of people. But I'm sure you had a very good reason for singleing out the minority of people interested in the topic of this particular page, as opposed to, say, the minority of people interested in Zords in Power Rangers: Mystic Force. -- Ritchy 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem incapable of keeping the discussion on this article and constantly try to source other articles to justify this one. It shows the extreme weakness of this article. You talk about attitude going against the very foundation of wikipedia, and people trying to push articles that have no place on wikipedia is one of those attitudes. Original research and opinion have no place here, and try to push that is what destroys wikipedia. You can't defend the article on its own merit, nor can anyone else who wants to keep it, leaving reasons which don't justify the article or leaving no reasons at all. You've had a year to clean it up since the first AFD, you've had 3 days to this point to justify keeping it, and you still can't do that. That is even further evidence that this article has no place here. Cruft applies to fiction topics. Part of Cruft refers to cruft topics that are only notable to a small group of people. No one outside trek fandom cares about continuity problems and not everyone within the group cares about the continuity problems. Neither a real lawfirm nor a real battle fall under cruft and aren't covered by that.  Which is again besides the point as we're discussing THIS article.  Whatever happens in another article is besides the point. We have a pile of issues with this article which lead to this AFD. Cruft, OR, Verifiability, and opinion. If you can't address those approrpriately in the context of this AFD, I'm not even sure why you're here? --Crossmr 23:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting sensitive a bit, aren't you? You should calm down, take a deep breath, and realise that every single point in your previous paragraph (save one, which I'll get to in a moment) is wrong. Like I've already said, this article doesn't exist in a vaccuum, but as part of Wikipedia, among millions of other articles. Referencing the rest of Wikipedia is most definitly not off-topic here. Quite the opposite, it is you, with your single-minded dedication to completely ignore other articles when judging this one, who is betraying the weakness of your position. Secondly, I feel the article has been quite cleaned up since last year. Which is not to say that it's perfect or finished, or that you're obligated to accept it as it, of course. But when you feel an article needs work, the proper reaction is to work on it or to use the talk page and tags to recommend directions for future work, not to delete it. Wikipedia is, after all, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not that anyone can delete pages they don't like. I have already stated and defended why I feel this article should stay - you seem to have missed that part. But more importantly, I give actual reasons for keeping it, instead of throwing keywords around with no justification as you do. I have tried to address your issues with the page, in so far as doing so is possible, as you have not stated any specific issues and, as I've said, have limited your argumentation to throwing keywords around. But as I said in the begining, you are right on one point. You are right in saying that I did not address the "it is cruft" accusation. Nor will I. That's because "cruft" is not even a real word. -- Ritchy 00:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cruft at Wiktionary. I'm just saying. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. I usually rely on Webster dictionary, which doesn't include "cruft". -- Ritchy 01:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't exist in a vaccuum, however every article has to stand on its own merit regardless of what happens in other articles. So whether or not another article is kept when you feel this article is more appropriate than that one has NO bearing on this article. There are over a million articles on wikipedia, articles that aren't supposed to be here can slip through the cracks and aren't to be used as justification for keeping an article. I haven't seen a single good response to the fact that this article expresses opinion, draws conclusions that it can't source and sources opinions that it can't verify. I'm popping this to the talk page, to keep the main article more readable for people --Crossmr 03:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

conclusion/end of AFD

 * comment So when do we get the final verdict on whether or not it will survive afd? Magic Pickle 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * response AfDs usually close after five days, although if the admins are backlogged, they can stay open longer until they're gotten to. That means that at the very earliest, the AfD's open 'til 17:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC). &mdash; Mike &bull; 15:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless some overly generous admin closes this like last time, I get the feeling its going to be deleted. User:Proto pointed out only a few comments back that there hasn't been a good reason given for keeping it, and all the reasons given are things that are completely irrelevant. --Crossmr 15:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There have been more good reasons given to keep it than delete it. Just because you can't recognise that doesn't mean the reasons aren't good, it just means you're biased beyond any hope. So what happens if "delete" does win? Given that it makes 1 keep vs. 1 delete and 1 no-consensus, do we call it a tie and move on? Or does one "delete" vote pre-empt any number of previous votes? And on the other hand, what if an admin reviews this and decides that there are enough good reasons to keep the article longer? Will you accept that? Or can we look forward to a fourth, fifth, sixth VfD, and more until you get your way? -- Ritchy 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that means the article is deleted. The previous AFDs have no bearing on this AFD. And if some admin actually closes this with the state its in and keeps it, they shouldn't be an admin. There is overwhelming support for its removal, and not a single good reason has been given for keeping the article. --Crossmr 16:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this line of thinking. The past VfDs don't matter. All the arguments for keeping the article don't count, and anyone voicing such arguments gets a well-deserved chastisement from you. Refuting your arguments is a "personal attack", and so anyone disagreeing with you should "stay out of the discussion". And any admin who disagrees with you shouldn't even be an admin. Well, you certainly made your position very clear. -- Ritchy 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes they don't count if they're not valid arguments for keepign an article as per the policies and guidelines that have been set out for wikipedia. Using the justification of many of the people here who claim this should be kept, I could write an article on my big toe so long as I "worked really hard on it" Then when its brought up for deletion, if I got a few buddies together to muddle the debate into a no concensus I could further argue on anymore deletion attempts that since it passed the last time (even if it didn't really) that it should be kept. There are standards on wikipedia, this violates those standards and all the "hard work" and "just becauses" in the world don't justify keeping it, no matter how many times you repeat it. --Crossmr 16:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is probably about time another, more detached user (though one who still voted delete) tackled this. No, the previous AfDs really do not count.  The idea is to get a "snapshot" of the current consensus and not over complicate the issue by referring to past AfDs.  Generally, if an article is relisted relatively soon ater an earlier AfD without good reason for doing so, a large number of users will vote keep based on this unfair use of AfD without making a judgement as to content, and this serves as a way to protect articles from constant abuse.  As to the arguements posited, I have found that it usually does not matter.  Admins tend not to make value judgements on whether an arguement is "valid" or not and just concentrate on the opniions of the users as to keep, delete, merge, etc.  That does not mean an individual admin cannot come along and give more weight to certain statements or ignore others, as the guidelines are loose on this issue, but generally the individual statements are ignored in the final tally and everyone's opinion counts as long as they are not a sockpuppet or anonymous user.  I hope that helps clear things up for you Ritchy, and of course anyone else is free to chime in if they feel I have misrepresented the situation. Indrian 20:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It means that it will be deleted, but that it could be undeleted if you took it to deletion review and convinced people there that it should be restored. Considering that the vast majority of keep votes have bene justified by such irrelevant arguments as "having a lot of work put into it" or "it survived the last AFD", I would be disappointed (but not all that surprised) if a Trekkie admin closed it as no consensus or keep. It's not unprecendented though. Deletion review can also be used to review unfair keeps or no consensus too. - Motor (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see how a reasonable admin can do anything other than delete the article after this discussion. It is almost entirely original research, something which those who want to keep the article have not really addressed. The back-and-forth above seems to be mainly about whether it is so-called "fancruft" and whether people find it useful or interesting. All this is irrelevant if it's OR. David L Rattigan 21:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Indrian gave it away and someone else mentioned it earlier in the discussion. As much as there is supposed to be a de-emphasis on the voting with this and an emphasis on the discussion, the admins that close tend to view them as votes, which is likely how it survived AFD last time. Which is why with almost any article you can get it to stick around if you have a dedicated group of people to show up and say keep and muddy the waters into a no concensus. This is why in this discussion we've already had an admin say he wants it kept just because he likes it, and another admin leave a comment of "keep" with no explanation. Their actions show that for some admins this process is just a vote. Luckily admins that express opinions on subjects aren't allowed to close, so we can hope a reasonable admin does show up to close. --Crossmr 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Challenge
Crossmr, will you work toward factualizing/de-ORing this article with Magic Pickle and others? I realize you may not care, particularly, about this subject, but your interactive approach right now with MP is already improving the article. We're showing right now that it can be improved instead of deleted. If you don't want any such responsibility/task/obligation, I'll take on the imitation of your no-nonsense style as a personal challenge, since I don't like the article as currently (previously) written, but think it should exist in some form. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been watching star trek for over 20 years, so don't think I'm some uninterested trek-hating monster. If a name change can be agreed upon, because honestly the name just doesn't work as it is, and when cleaned up the article is more than a stub (without needlessly filling sections with fluff which don't really add anything to the article) and everyone agrees to a strict policy of no conclusions and enforcing that quality in the article I have no problem with the information being present here. The reason this was nominated for AFD was because this hadn't happened with all the time the article had been given. A case could be made for just about any subject on anything and whether or not it should be permitted on wikipedia. But if the article isn't going to be maintained with quality and there is a history of that, notable or not, sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and say either clean it up or ship it out. I myself don't currently have the extra time to devote to directly cleaning up the article. I'm still working on devandalizing a bunch of pages targetted by a user for subtle-vandalism, which means all hand edits.  You probably have a significant amount of time until this is closed if you want to make the actual improvements, but I think you're going to need to show more than a couple of cleaned up points to get most people to change their mind. I know yesterady they only finished closing off stuff from the 12th. So with that timeline, you've probably got about 3-4 days until an admin even reaches this if they close it right away. If you're close in 3 days, you could relist it, that automagically extends the deadline 5 days. Make a point of stating the article has received significant clean-up and you'd like people to give opinions based on the new version. But really, you should only do this if there has been maybe at least 1/2 of the Contradictions cleaned up, otherwise I think you'd just get burried in the deletes and nothing would save it. There have been a handful arguing for its keep, some quite passionately. If they really feel it should stay, I'd challenge them to do the actual cleanup, otherwise, what are they here arguing for? In 3 or 4 days I should hopefully be free from my current to-do list and perhaps I can join you if I see the significant improvement needed. --Crossmr 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sadly as we all have seen, there was little, to no, time given to me to rework the article. While crossmr may have had a point about the article's flaws, I don't think (I'm sure he would agree) that crossmr should be the sole authority for approving the re-emergence of this article. I mainly communicated with crossmr in an attempt to show willing. I feel the way forward would be to de-OR it, perhaps rename it, and put it back. Whether or not we go through afd again is another matter. Magic Pickle 00:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)