Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wreck

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 of the debate was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - plenty of non-self-generated hits ... and it has been mentioned in the national and international media[1] [2] [3] [4] ... according to WP:MEME, mention in a reliable source outside of internet culture makes it notable ... so by virtue of the CNN mention, I'd say this one is an unquestionable keep BigDT 02:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The CNN mention makes this one open and shut. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 03:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is very unimportant stuff. Erik the Rude 03:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well good grief, so is most of Wikipedia. But the question is does it meet the notability guidelines for its genre and under the proposed guideline WP:MEME, it does. BigDT 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:MEME is only a proposed guideline, and I suspect it'll be a cold day in Hell when it becomes widely accepted. Erik the Rude 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but the fact is that whether you accept WP:MEME or not, I found four media mentions without half trying. This is unquestionably notable within the European Star Trek community and has gained media attention outside that community. To me, that makes it notable. BigDT 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd be surprised. After all, I thought the same about CSD A7. Either way, you shouldn't be complaining, it meets WP:WEB too. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. per BigDT. Tachyon01 04:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well, they apparently are reasonably known movies and the page is fine with links. - Cribananda 05:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Notable fan movie series. JIP | Talk 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable where other series are not. --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Notable to the extent that it has been mentioned several times in Finnish mainstream media and given Finnish mainstream cultural awards[5]. Thus, this is notable not only as scifi fandom stuff, but also notable as modern Finnish culture.Punainen Nörtti 09:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Popularity pushes it over the edge. Just. -- GWO
• Weak keep, a fair amount of coverage... so it just about makes it. It also makes a useful bucket for stuff from the "Wreck"-cruft articles that need cleaning out. - Motor (talk) 10:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Popular and highly notable piece of independent moviemaking. Nick Cook 14:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable film, different from the rest. --Terence Ong 14:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Requires cleanup, though. Molerat 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - very notable (even just in the digg/slashdot screentime it recieved), I believe it was the most downloaded film online for a while -- Tawker 15:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Certainly notable enough. Even if the individual movies don't get articles, give the series one. Vadder 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CNN reference, etc., etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if it were music it would fail WP:MUSIC, same for porn, books, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Music passes WP:MUSIC, if it statisfies one of the following

Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network.

Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning has been broadcast in the Finnish national TV.

Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in reliable and reputable media (excludes things like school newspapers, personal blogs, etc...).

See BigDT's comment above. See also [6] (from Aamulehti, Valo-liite), [7] (Keskisuomalainen), [8] (Savon sanomat), [9] (Turun sanomat, treffi-liite), [10] (Helsingin sanomat), [11] (IT-viikko)

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Star Wreck is the most prominent representative of Finnish science fiction cinema.Punainen Nörtti 08:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would say the series is notable primarily for spawning Star Wreck: In the Pirkinning, it may be appropriate to merge it into that instead. -- Hawaiian717 19:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per discussion
• Keep per above. Seems to have plenty of mentions in media to be credible as an article. Voice of Treason 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above - Mentions in magazines, and quite a bit of viral popularity in Finland and elsewhere. Easily among the more notable ST fan works. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mauro Bieg 08:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : absolutely intresting story behind the development of the series, and the last movie is absolutely worth being in Wikipedia Malo Supremo 10:55, 8 June 2006 (GMT) — page history shows this signature signed by 212.45.98.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Keep, one of the few examples of fan-created material that has become notable itself. Kusma (討論) 00:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A more obvious keep is hard to find. It is definatly notable with 270 000 google hits and mentions in established media. Jeltz talk 10:47, 11 June 2006 (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.