Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrekNation

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. NawlinWiki 03:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TrekNation

TrekNation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

When one considers the tortured syntax necessary to establish how this trek site is different form all the others, one s prompted to wonder: do we actually care that Christian Höhne Sparborth founded this after leaving another network in a huff? Do we need the long list of links to member profiles? Do we, in fact, need a directory entry for this trekkers' fan site at all? I don't think we do. I don't think it's been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm indifferent, so I comment rather than go one way or the other. But at least two of the refs provided are reliable: Fox News and CNN. The rest of the refs are pointers back to itself, books written by members, and the like. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "books written by members" Actually it's the complete opposite, i.e. the authors happen to post on the board, thus making the board noteworthy. Tehr 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Neither the CNN or Fox News stories are acutally about the site, they just use it (or its creator) as a reference, so there are no reliable sources that form a basis for the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - this is the most well-known Star Trek site save possibly for Memory Alpha. It is often cited by recognized media or by official Star Trek publications, eg book reviews, LA Business Journal. --B 08:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, probably notable although somewhat marginal. Seems to have some recognition from external sources, as indicated by B and in the article. Everyking 04:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per B. — BrotherFlounder 16:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As noted and sourced by the article, authors of various Star Trek books post on the board and often recognize the board in their books (both the board and its individual members). Tehr 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It does seem to be somewhat notable. • Lawrence Cohen 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. —• Lawrence Cohen 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• <removed !vote by banned editor... not that it will have any bearing on the outcome...>--Isotope23 ^talk 13:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A significant improvement over the original article. One of the most notable Trek websites. Well cited and documented. Alyeska 05:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and please note that many if not all of the keep votes stem from this thread: [1] encouraging people to vote to keep the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.117.154 (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, it would appear that most of the individuals opining here are fairly active editors with a history rather than fly-by SPA that were fed here by a forum post. I've seen lots of !votestacking in my time and it doesn't appear that is happening here (and I say this as someone who takes a fairly dim view of Trekkie fancruft). It simply doesn't look like meatpuppetry to me.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep A very nicely cited article; in fact, so well documented I venture to say it calls into question the motives and administrative skill-set of the nominator. Also, if we look back at 208.97.117.154's first edit to Wikipedia and a later edit, we see that his opinion of "Delete" above is not backed by much seriousness for the project. --Earthboat 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Nicely cited"? This article is nearly wholly cited from such "reliable sources" such as "treknation" and "trekbbs". Sorry, but your argument wrapped around a snarky attack on the nominator and anon IP isn't really very well supported. I make no judgment either way on the inherent notability of the topic, but this article as it stands is a very pretty mess and I hope that at least some of the individuals opining keep will endeavor to clean it up when this AFD closes.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• My computer is part of a network inside the appartment block where I live and consequently, several of the edits are done by seperate people. You should assuming good faith Earthboat and not berate those that do not vote the way you would wish. And if you want to speak of motives, I should note that the creation of this article stems from the denizens of the TrekBBS being miffed that there wasn't an article about them. I would say that the TrekNation may deserve mention within an article about Trek fandom at large but it does not merit its own article.--208.97.117.154 19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, the "nice cites" that I saw were from Pocket Books, CNN, and Fox News. Perhaps you haven't heard of these reliable sources? If I was snarky, no worries. I'll withdraw my opinion and simply let any of the other large majority Keep votes here speak for me. Isotope23, I see from your contributions that you are pretty much a "block and/or delete" machine on Wikipedia. That wouldn't surprise me, for someone who wants to go out of his way to delete an entity that Pocket Books, CNN, and Fox News have all found time to mention. Not only that, you're removing votes of other users! As for the anon IP, why don't you get yourself a User account and build some credibility? --Earthboat 20:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting assessment; where in the world did you get the idea I am going "out of [my] way to delete an entity that Pocket Books, CNN, and Fox News have all found time to mention"? Would it be when I didn't add a "delete" opinion to the article? Perhaps it was when I suggested this doesn't get snowed so a clear consensus can be reached. Maybe it was defending most of the "keep" !voters as not being single purpose accounts fed here by a forum. That must have been it.

Beyond that, any comments I removed were per our policy on banned editors contributing here. Perhaps you could spend more time getting your facts straight and less time attacking legitimate IP users... that would be nice. Credibility is based on contributions... not on having a username.--Isotope23 ^talk 22:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

<removed comment by banned editor.>--Isotope23 ^talk 19:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion - Perhaps this discussion would be better on someone's talk page? — BrotherFlounder 02:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yawwwwwn... It would appear that other news sources mentioning or describing the subject of the article include: Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Winston-Salem Journal, and the Los Angeles Business Journal. One wishing to preserve the article would merely have to obtain these sources from archives, read them, and cite them, right? Or, you could just Delete the article. That's more fun, isn't it? --Earthboat 16:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It needs some work to make it more objective (it reads like an ad for the site) but otherwise it is a noteworthy subject. Hermiod 16:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could we get this closed up per WP:SNOW? — BrotherFlounder 17:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'd suggest just letting it run course. The consensus looks to be a pretty clear keep and WP:SNOW seems to always just invite a deletion review. It should close tomorrow anyway.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Damnit, we already went through one of those. Forget I said it. — BrotherFlounder 22:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unnotable cruft, just the kind of asrticle wikipedia neitherh wants nor needs as we atre writing an encyclopedia not a teenager magazine, SqueakBox 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. How does it harm anything to cover Trekkie fan sites, as silly as some may think them? *Dan T.* 00:55, 29 September 2007 (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.