Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality in Star Trek (3rd 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. Michig (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in Star Trek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is too far gone to repair. Nominating per

WP:TNT says, help encourage a new article and so people will actually fix it. Gestrid (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree there needs to be a massive rewrite, not all of it is bad, and there needs to be recognition of previous contributors since some of this should be kept in a massive rewrite. --MASEM (t) 02:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(
WP:AFC for example. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

The thing is, you're arguing for TNT of a topic that is clearly notable (there's at least one published book on this topic), so we have to look at the value of the contributions. If there was no value to any reasonable fraction of the previous edits, TNT makes sense, but reviewing the past history, there was clearly well-intended additions, maybe not all in line with WP:V but are concepts that seem to be appropriate for the article. So deleting that revision history makes no sense. But as pointed out below, perhaps stubbify and having a AFC/Draft-space version worked on that then can be history merged to this is completely in line. But deletion under TNT just doesn't make sense here. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced, it could be organized better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Well referenced? Did you read it? Is this a parody of a vote? Large parts of this, probably most, are purely OR detailing the minute plot points of whatever episode some fan decided to write about, or extensive citations of this or that actor's comments on their own character. Revent^talk 03:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to 'quantify' this, for the sake of people who will also not read it, out of five top level sections, not counting the lede, three have absolutely no references. Revent^talk 03:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

refimprove}}, as there are plenty of each. -- Gestrid (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep - a bold edit to stubiffy would probably go unmolested, particularly if a heads-up gets dropped and supported at the wikiproject talk page. The topic itself is surely
notable, and outright deletion seems an inapt approach. I wholeheartedly agree it needs a fresh start; what's necessary isn't wholesale elimination (including edit history, some of which we might want to retain in a new iteration) but rather an editor or two prioritizing not just erasing the content but putting together a framework for improvement. --EEMIV (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep
WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep because the unreferenced / refimprove sections are mostly, if not all of them, facts. Synopses for episodes are easy to find on the Internet, and over time, if people are willing, will populate those story snippets with references. There are a few in-lines which need their sources a great deal more, but the article doesn't have to be perfect. The sections could do with a little reorganization of structure, and the header could use a brush-up on briefly saying what the article is about, emphasis on briefly. Nevertheless, the article is encyclopedic in nature, informative as it stands, and it appears to be a notable topic with a slew of references. WinterSpw (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, perfectly salvagable article. Artw (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly there is a lot of unloved articles related to Star Trek, and this is one of them. However, a lack of cited information is not reason to delete an article - otherwise we'd have a lot less articles below GA across Wiki than we do now. Completely agree that this needs to be overhauled, but that in itself is by no means unique. Miyagawa (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2016 (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.