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 delete. And replace with the real-world concept. A small mention of the fictional use may be appropriate there. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic quadrant[edit]

Galactic quadrant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

In-universe plot summary. The notion of "quadrants" has no independent notability from e.g. the settings of the DS9 and Voyager spin-offs. Cited sources substantiate solely plot summary, and do not bolster any kind of real-world, encyclopedic treatment (save for a single quote about production/writing trivia -- not nearly enough to meet GNG). --EEMIV (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As stated above, the subject really doesn't have any independent notability. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DON'T Delete It is highly informative, and it is about a coined term that survived 3 TV series during 15 years. --Markps (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a reasonable topic spanning the various Star Trek franchises. Cataloging the evolution in the term throughout the 40+ year history of the fictional universe is not OR. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Further comments: Since the article appears to be Star Trek centric, how about we retitle the article to something more Star Trek-specific. Also, worth noting that since it spans shows, there's no single good merge target. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial, non-notable feature which has received no reliable independent coverage. --Claritas § 21:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even look? At the time of the nomination, there were four reliable independent sources in the article. I've tagged it for rescue in hopes folks can find and add more. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not independent: they are licensed or production material, failing to show significant third-party coverage. They treat the subject in-universe and do not offer appropriate fodder for an encyclopedic treatment. The Google Books results are overwhelmingly passing references in narratives (i.e. EU novels) or in-universe "reference" material; the scant "real world" mentions are fleeting, and also fail to show significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep trying to redefine "third party" all you want, but the fact is that licensed, production, fan fiction, or similar material are produced independently of the primary sources. Another Star Trek series is not an independent, third party reliable source, but a Star Trek encyclopedia put together and published by an editorially independent third party is a reliable source regardless of whether permission was obtained to use the franchise's intellectual property. The alternative would require a higher bar for fictional topics than news topics: current events don't need anyone's permission to be republished. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivial and of no enclyopedic value. A quick search brought up no real third part interest.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inappropriate in-universe treatment of trivial fancruft. SnottyWong ^spout 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no third party coverage that would WP:verifynotability. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The galactic quadrants of Star Trek are covered in detail in numerous sources including Star Trek: the human frontier , Star Trek Reader's Reference to the Novels, Star Trek 101, Star Trek - The Americanization of Space, &c. The topic is therefore notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Far too trivial for an encyclopedia. RoryReloaded 09:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Star Trek Encyclopedia has Quadrant as a separate entry on page 393. Your personal opinion is thus contradicted by objective evidence and so is just an argument to avoid. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Star Trek Encyclopedia is an in-universe collection of trivia and minutiae, and not in any significant way comparable to e.g. Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. -- to say that "if it's good enough for the Star Trek Encyclopedia, it's good for The Free Encyclopedia" is a fallacy conflating two products with entirely different scopes and criteria for inclusion. In fact, the Wikipedia community has repeatedly identified subjects covered by The Star Trek Encyclopedia as inappropriate for coverage here (e.g. the ready room, observation lounge, M4, Lunaport, New Berlin, Tycho City, saucer separation, saucer section, stardrive section, autodestruct -- all of these articles deleted for lack of notability, and all of them covered in STTE). --EEMIV (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is full of "trivia and minutiae" of all sorts. Such emotional characterisations indicate a personal bias and value judgement contrary to core policy. Britannica is a general encyclopedia and is comparatively small. Wikipedia, by contrast, is enormous and its scope includes elements of general and specialized encyclopedias. The Star Trek Encyclopedia seems to be the most relevant and authoritative work which indicates the appropriate level for an encyclopedic treatment of such topics, as determined by the professional editors and publishers who produce it. That work has appeared in multiple editions and formats which demonstrates the notability of its content and its suitability for our readership. Individual topics are presumably treated on their merits and I have demonstrated coverage of this one in numerous other independent sources which confirms the notability of this particular item. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it is full of all sorts of trivia and minutiae, years of cruft penned by unrepentant fanboys. All you do here is point out there is much that can and should be brought to their own AfDs. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguation or restructure. Delay close for a week. New info that changes everything: Apparently the division of the galaxy by quadrants is not an entirely trekky thing. I just did a Google book search and found hundreds of professional astronomy texts using the term galactic quadrant, though referring to them by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rather than Alpha, Beta, etc. More importantly, a source seems to confirm that they are refering to the same system of dividing the galaxy by degrees and that it was inspired by Star Trek! Now this article has historical and independent substance. I'm going to notify WikiProject Astronomy —CodeHydro 20:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rewrite. As we decide how to incorporate the new material, I have made a sandbox version of the page, User:Codehydro/Sandbox/Galactic quadrant, as a proposed version. Anybody working on it really ought to take a look at it and make improve on the sandbox version since it is not quite ready to replace the actual article (since I've filled it with WP:OR and a bit of (educated) BS just to see how it would look. ;) Who knows, my guesses might not be far from the truth.... now where are those folk from the Astronomy Project that I called? —CodeHydro 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no problem completely nuking the current article and replacing it with the real-world concept. However, I wholly (as presented in the sandbox) the retention of the current content of "Galactic quadrant". If the notion of galactic quadrants holds water as a real-world(-galaxy?) concept, that's great -- Star Trek's treatment, however, remains trivial and does not warrant coverage here. --EEMIV (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After a couple more hours of research and hammering out most of the WP:OR and educated BS, I think the sandbox version may be decent enough to replace the main article. I put a note on a main page requesting the merging of the two histories (note, I commented out the categories in the sandbox version). —CodeHydro 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrtates too much on the fictional and too little oin real world. The objection was (and remains) that the trek material is fanwank only.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. —CodeHydro 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Move to Galactic quadrant (Star Trek) and replace with disambiguation page - in the light of the use of the term in astronomy, it may be worth moving this article to Galactic quadrant (Star Trek) and turning Galactic quadrant into a disambiguation page. Icalanise (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite to focus more on the real-world concept. As it stands, the article is chock-a-block full of crufty fan trivia. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note my sandbox version above, where I adjusted my vote to "Keep and rewrite." —CodeHydro 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Information: (1) I have histmerged in User:Codehydro's user-area sandbox edits; (2) re "cruft", often one man's cruft is another man's important matter, e.g. some people follow Star Trek / football / etc and some do not. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment re. merge and article - I object to the history merge and re-focus on essentially a new topic mid-AfD -- this is one of the things e.g. A Nobody was chastised for. I'd like the article restored to its earlier version, allow the AfD -- comments on which have overwhelmingly focused on that subject and content -- to continue with that subject, and then allow for the creation of an article with a new focus atop it. Although this content has been created in good faith, it does not address the underlying "fanwank"*. Because the "real-world" content was created by one editor, I believe it would be just fine for that editor to copy-and-paste his content from the sandbox (or to move the sandbox's entire edit history atop the redlink to create a new article about what is essentially a new topic). (*Sidenote re. cruft: I both "follow Star Trek" and believe this content is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Just FYI. There's no hatin'.) --EEMIV (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Note how in the introduction to the The "Star Trek view" section, it describes it as a perfectly valid, albeit mostly informal, way to divide the galaxy in real life. Anyhow, it's actually pretty commmon in the field of astronomy for the line between fact and fiction to be blurred; I mean, who has actually visited another star or planet first-hand? Most details in astronomy are just educated guesses based on low-resolution observations. In short, I think it's fine to keep the two quadrant systems in one page. —CodeHydro 14:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment—The use of galactic quandrant in astronomy should not pertain as to whether to retain the Trekkie information. The former can be covered just as well in the GCS article. That being said, I don't buy the "trivia" arguments above; they are too much like personal bias. If the notability of the Star Trek-based content can be established, then the article should be kept.—RJH (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Referenced three more books neither affiliated with nor primarily concerned with Star Trek for material in the "Star Trek view": Universalities: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases, The science fiction and fantasy readers' advisory, and Science fiction television. If these three don't establish notability outside of fandom, then consider that Google books finds 2,710 results for the exact phrase "Alpha Quadrant," 245 for "beta quadrant," 3,030 for "delta quadrant," and 2,390 for "gamma quadrant." While I certainly don't have time to look through all of them; that is a lot of books and a good deal of them probably are not affiliated with Star Trek. —CodeHydro 23:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tut tut! Websters Quotations is a well-known Wikipedia mirror and not a source. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is on the concept of dividing the Galaxy into 4 parts. Clearly this is a notable concept. Star Trek should be mentioned. How much detail about it is another question. Wolfview (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No real-world value or notability. Memory-Alpha is a much better host for subjects that are only of in-universe importance such as this. Tarc (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2010 (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.