Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition

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 - As the episodes of Star Trek have been seen by millions of people, they are all indisputably notable. The Rules of acquisition have come up again and again, and are a central aspect of the Ferengi way of life, and are prominently featured in dozens of episodes. They are also the basis for the title of a popular Star Trek book. This doesn't seem to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) guideline, but at this time the status of that guideline is under dispute - but more importantly, consensus trumps a guideline. Reliable sources is also a guideline, and the community can overrule it. It's not a trivia section as per WP:TRIVIA because the items listed forms a logical group. The article is not indiscriminate, as its subject matter is a specific well-known set of items. The consensus is overwhelmingly to keep, and no policies have been cited that are being violated by the article, as far as I can tell. The Transhumanist 04:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Acquisition

The article has very limited notability, and the useful information about who created the rules I have moved to the main Ferengi article. As the rest of this article is just a repetition of the Rules from the various television shows, it is duplicative with the plot sections of the various shows in which they were featured, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This fictional code of "ethics" has sources available to establish real world notability. the article is not in seriously bad shape to begin with. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what of its lack of any reliable secondary sourcing, which is crucial to establishing notability? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost all sources are episodes of the show. No out-of-universe notability is established. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm uncomfortable with "almost all" sources being primary. Doesn't that mean that some sources are secondary? AnteaterZot (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Ferengi. This is just a list of trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT, ie actual policies. -- Masterzora (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting WP:RS, since the article has none. Besides, the one thing to keep, the actual writers of the rules for the show, is in the article on Ferengi, the rest of this list is totally unneeded. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll note that I only listed *actual policies*, which WP:RS isn't. The article does indeed pass WP:SOURCES, a section of WP:V, which I already listed it as passing. -- Masterzora (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article satisfies WP:V and WP:NOR. Although unnecessary to satisfy Wikipedia policy, concept has out-of-universe notability (for one thing, it was referenced in last year's HMC graduation speech). --Goobergunch|? 04:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't, as it has no sources other than the TV show, which is inadequate. We need multiple out of universe references, otherwise there is no need for a whole article separate from the Ferengi article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Scholar search came up with quite a few papers referencing the Rules of Acquisitions. Sadly, I can't incorporate these into the article because I don't have journal access until I go back to school on the 20th, but they do exist [1]. --Goobergunch|? 06:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per Masterzora and Goobergunch above. -- Prototype27 (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. --Goobergunch|? 08:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Note Still the only edit, created on the same day of AfD... (sniff) I smell Meat!

Keep, as I suspected, and as Goobergunch has so ably demonstrated, secondary sources exist. In fact, these are in peer-reviewed business and economics academic journals. There are books as well. This article, if cleaned up and expanded, could grace the main page someday. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be a significant number of references to real-world Rules of Acquisition out there, e.g. Google Books. The Ferengi version is obviously satirical and the article might usefully be developed to highlight the ethical and economic background. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and redirect/delete. It would be bad to lose it because all of it is sourced, but the rules list seems to have a very limited real-world notability indeed, if at all (outside the Star Treak universe). – sgeureka ^t•c 12:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no valid deletion argument posed. Cburnett (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Masterzora's argument. The encyclopedia would be worse off if this article is deleted, and Goobergunch has demonstrated additional third-party sources. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or MERGE Really? Is everyone in here a TRekkie? Come on guys. Listcruff? Trivia? Should be on TRekwiki???? Only trekkie boobs want to see this on Wikipedia. Let's get back to writing articles instead of hitting the remind button 1000 times to record every piece of dialog from an entire Star Trek episode. MiracleMat (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid reason given at this time for its deletion (BTW, calling other editors "boobs" isn't exactly WP:AGF or WP:NPA — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reluctantly Merge Nobody has come up with a really good reason to delete it. It's not an insignificant article in as much as there is a lot of content in it. Why delete for the sake of it? If it can't be kept, why not merge the content of the list into the Ferengi article. And before anyone accuses me of being biased, or anything else, yes, I have worked on the article. Rmkf1982 ^Talk 15:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, multiple references, no real rationale for deletion. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 17:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ferengi Seriously folks... This is a list of rules from a fictitious race in a fictional TV show. Does it really need it's very own article? It's rules from the Ferengi... put it with the Ferengi! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PAPER. And the TV show isn't fictional, it's very real. :) Contrary to the general movement of squashing fiction (TV, movies, etc.) currently abound on wikipedia, an article's content shouldn't get "special" treatment (i.e., merging) because it's about fiction. And it being fictional is entirely what your point is about. Cburnett (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant media coverage Addhoc (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has achieved notability. JJL (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]