Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe) (2nd 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 Keep --JForget 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

United Federation of Planets (Star Fleet Universe)

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Fleet game articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. ALSO, THERE IS ALREADY AN ARTICLE ON THE United Federation of Planets, this is simply a repetition with slight variations of the version from the Star Fleet Universe of games. Judgesurreal777 21:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. That is all. ViperSnake151 22:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did redirect this , but I've undone the redirect per concerns that this isn't exactly the same after all (see my talk page and the article's talk page). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Judging from the article's talk page and the last nomination, Star Trek != Star Fleet Universe, although they are related. Also note that several other Star Fleet Universe-related articles have been kept in AfDs that weren't all that long ago for that reason. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But sadly, their lack of improvement is a further nail in the coffin concerning their notability. Judgesurreal777 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. To Star Fleet Universe (not to United Federation of Planets or Star Trek). This is an article about a fictional setting used by a series of games, which already have their own article at Star Fleet Universe. The setting is not inherently notable and nothing in the article asserts notability.Hobson 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is less than a month since this article was last nominated and nothing new is being said. Per Repeat nominations such hasty relisting is considered disruptive. Colonel Warden 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quick, I give you that, but disruptive? When the article in question has no notability, and asserted none? I'm sorry if Wikipedia notability and verifiability policies are burdensome, but the article still needs to improve and hasn't. Judgesurreal777 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Colonel Warden. In addition, while the this Federation and the 'mainline' Federation have similar roots, there is a significant difference warrenting more than just a mention on the other page. --Donovan Ravenhull 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I was getting the debates ready for these Star Fleet articles, another user complained that HE WAS ABOUT TO DO THE SAME THING! So the articles are clearly so not notable people are dying to get ride of them. If you can show that they meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, then great add some references, if not, don't argue policy, this is not a policy forum. Judgesurreal777 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to nominate them not because I wanted them deleted, but because I knew that you were going to do it anyway, and I preferred a bundled nomination over five separate but closely related nominations. So, yes, I was going to nominate them, but not for the reason you're stating. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am using exageration to make a point; in less than a month, people try to delete them because they have no hope of improvement, and there has been no improvement. It still illustrates my point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOEFFORT. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is working on it not because they are disinterested or people are busy, but most likely because there is nothing to add. The critical pieces of notability that this article would need dont exist. Hey, it happens, they had to de-feature Wario because all they know about how he was developed is his name in Japanese! And unless we have things like, say, World of Final Fantasy VIII, then there's no reason to keep the article. Take a look at this article, and see how good it is, and the type of information it has. That is what is needsd, and what is currently lacking. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per ColonelWarden. Needing improvement is not the same thing as needing deletion. This is a volunteer project, and there is no deadline for improvement. The AfD process shouldn't be used to try to force improvement of articles in a timely manner. And yes, multiple deletion nominations are a disruption. Rray (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Rray. Edward321 (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that over 90%, probably 95% of my nominations have been deleted, so it seems that my record disagrees with you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not really the same thing as those other articles, and Speedy Keep because it has only been about a month since the last nomination, also, per ColonelWarden, needing cleanup is not the same as needing deletion. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 03:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup is needed for articles that have hope of sourcing at some point, and there has been no demonstration either at the article or in these AFD's that such sourcing exists. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict with RFerreira) You haven't even given it a chance for improvement, as the last nom was only one month ago. Generally, you let it sit for some time (preferably more than one month) and see what happens, then nominate it for deletion. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would withdraw if you could produce some evidence, or at least strongly assure me that references will be found at some point. As of now, it doesn't seem likelyJudgesurreal777 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't answered my question: why didn't you give the article the time considered to be "polite" (for lack of a better word) and instead nominating it after one month? In addition, references abound at those games' websites. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice it had had a previous deletion till I nominated it, and then I didn't know it was nominated only a month ago. That doesn't mean the article doesn't suck and shouldn't improve. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ColonelWarden, content issues need not be hashed out on the deletion channel. RFerreira (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no notability, there is no article once you eliminate the unverifiable content, which would then be everything. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.