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 Consensus is to Keep based on the view that reliable sources can be found and used to improve the article. Davewild (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion War

[edit]
Dominion War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is not notable in an encyclopedic sense, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek:Deep Space Nine television show articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I was pretty clear in saying that it is unencyclopedic because it doesn't meet our guidelines, such as verification and notability. And if it is such a strong "theme", then by all means, show that it has some notability. Judgesurreal777 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be difficult, but it is required that that type of notability be established; we need information like the writers discussing how they developed the plot, what arguments they had, fan reaction from prominent publications, etc. That is what is required to avoid deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I thought that notability only need be ASSERTED to qualify under wp:notability (ala: speedy). The issue would be verification under wp:rs, and there are thousands of sources but not all meet wp:rs. It is like picking out a particular needle, in a stack of needles. I'm trying to be sincere about this, and please don't take this wrong, but it sounds like the arguements against are mainly arguments for improving but don't qualify as arguments for delete. Pharmboy (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand its frustrating, but in order to have an article on wikipedia you must demonstrate some or in fact ANY notability. If you could do that, we would be in the realm of article research and improvement, or merging or something like that, but otherwise it fails the "should it have its own article test". You should, however, make sure that this article is already at the Star Trek fan wikis so the information is not lost to those who love Star Trek, like me. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am reading the actual policy, wp:notability, and fail to see how it fails. Whether it is cited enough is another issue but notability is asserted and supported within the article. Maybe a REFERENCES tag would better be in order for a few weeks. Pharmboy (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If fails by having no notability proven through reliable sources. That's it. Its not that its unreferenced, its that there are no references to add, so there is no notability, and should be no article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't even make sense. A subject can be notable but not properly referenced (verified). Verifiable is not the same as Notable, and I think you are confusing the two. I can write an article about George Washington with no citations, and assert notability while not providing references (verify). Pharmboy (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think saying that there are no references to add is making a big assumption in this case -- that was my point about them taking some time to find. There shouldn't be any urgency to delete an article that seems notable when we know it's verifiable -- tag the article as needing proof of notability, make sure people from appropriate WikiProjects are aware of the problem, and give it some time. Pinball22 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a lot of time since the article was created to establish any notability, but all that has been done is assembling a massive in-universe plot repetition. There are a few days, they should use them to find creator commentary and that stuff, because I haven't been able to. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Star Trek Deep Space Nine. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you get the chance EEMIV, would you put one or two in the article? That way we can establish notability for all to see and then we can withdraw the nomination, as my concern, that no references existed anywhere, will be addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:08, 7 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.
More