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. east.718 at 08:48, December 22, 2007

Q Continuum

[edit]

Love Star Trek, but this is just an in-universe plot repetition of the various appearances by Q in the Star Trek stories, and has no notability and references of its own. As such, its just duplication of material from the plot section of various Star Trek articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a fairly important concept in the Trek universe, and the article can grow. Bacchiad (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue, the issue is notability, meaning can we get information like "how was this created", "what issues came up while writing for this aspect of the show?" That kind of stuff. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicates content that is mostly contained in the Q (Star Trek) article, and other relevant places. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there is consensus (which we are not here to discuss) Q (Star Trek) can be merged into this article or the other way around. As for out-of-universe relevance, several theologians have drawn parallels between the Q Continuum and the Gods of various religions. Those can be incorporated into the article (or maybe just a mention of the existence of such works), but we must be careful about WP:POV. --Blanchardb-^{MeMyEarsMyMouth}-timed 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep must admit that this has achieved some notability; can also be merged with the character's page and set to redirect. JJL (talk) 01:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, there are no indications that this article can attain sources to prove notability. Until such time, I believe it should be redirected, so that if sources are found, it can be easily recreated. I (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm saying that on the grounds of my Google Books search [1] which brings up several likely sources. I don't have any of those books. But if there is a Star Trek Wikiproject? Perhaps one of those editors listed can come and work on the article. Deserving of its own article in my opinion. Sting_au Talk 03:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Q (Star Trek) - and trim down in-universe info. Ejfetters (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above, but it should be noted that Q (Star Trek) is also woefully lacking in reliable sources. Q is a notable character, but one properly sourced article for the character(s)/continuum would be enough.--Michig (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason why reliable sources couldn't be found, as per Sting_au. Cleanup can be done quite easily. mattbuck (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for inclusion. Plenty of in print sources which cover this aspect of the Star Trek universe. We needn't delete articles just because they need cleanup. Rray (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough for inclusion. Plenty of online and in print sources which cover this aspect of the Star Trek universe. We needn't delete articles just because they need cleanup, or because they are mentioned in other articles on wikipedia. John1951 (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If someone could post, say three of them, I will withdraw this nomination. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NOTABILITY, has been cited in several Star Trek franchise series.--Shark face 217 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because it appeared in several episodes of Star Trek doesn't establish notability, stuff like creator commentary, how they came up with this idea and so forth. Assembling keep votes and claiming without proof that its notable is not what this AFD is about, its about seeing if anyone can establish notability, otherwise you should concede it has none. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very useful, concept and continuum notable for more than just the John de Lancie Q. Kolindigo (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge as above, but in the opposite order. Merge and redirect Q (Star Trek) into this article. If not for the Q Continuum there would not have been Q, and without Q the entire Star Trek Universe post Q on the Enterprise would be drastically different. The Continuum is a vital part of the story as we know it, and quite notable. Lostinlodos (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with main Q article. Lostinlodos makes a good point that the "continuum"-aspect makes a merge very easy to justify. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 21 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.