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. Not seeing a consensus to merge/redirect. It was suggested several times that sufficient sources exist to craft an article which satisfies WP:N and WP:V, in which case deletion would be inappropriate regardless of the article's current state. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xindi (Star Trek)[edit]

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

I love Star Trek, but let's face it - this is fancruft that fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). And MemoryAlpha wiki covers this 10 times better, and is the place most people check for stuff like this, too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the article does not currently reflect this (incidentally, I draw this to the attention of Miyagawa and Aoba47, either of whom may be interested in improving this article), but there is a fair amount of academic coverage of the Xindi. There's some analysis of the Xindi in The Influence of Star Trek on Television, Film and Culture and the Politics of Star Trek, for instance. At the very least, it'd be nice to see a merge to List of Star Trek races; the article's not great right now, but it has some potential. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of Star Trek races: I believe there are enough sources out there to establish notability for this subject to have its own article. Right now, the article is in very rough shape. I can, however, see and understand this being turned to a redirect and merge to the list (with the redirect being marked as something with potential in case someone finds more information and turns it into a stronger article). The points about MemoryAlpha wiki are not relevant for a discussion on the article's notability (whether or not people use the MemoryAlpha wiki or Wikipedia to find information related to Star Trek is irrelevant to determining whether or not this subject matter is notable or not. There are plenty of quality Star Trek articles on here, so the focus should be kept on whether or not there are enough third-party, reliable sources to justify a single article). I agree that the list is also in pretty poor shape, but there is potential. I am not familiar with this subject, but maybe someday I will look into improving this further. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Trek races; no need for a merge as strictly "fancruft". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing about this topic on List of Star Trek races right now is the name and a link to the article so I would imagine so selective merging would be necessary if this is redirected to the list. I am not saying to merge the entire thing, but just parts of it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. While I have no doubt that this could be a proper article, at the moment it's written purely in-universe. Articles related to Enterprise are tricky simply because of the lack of specific books about the series, and therefore a lack of information on the real-world development of the Xindi. There is some limited information from interviews and the like but it's limited. I agree with Aoba47 that someday this could be restored to a full article, when it can be properly developed. Perhaps the books that were released related to the 50th anniversary expand on the Enterprise related information and therefore will help in this regard, but I don't have access to those at the moment. Heck, perhaps the Xindi might turn up in Discovery and get some coverage there. But at the moment there certainly isn't anything I could use to bring it in line with articles like Kazon or Enterprise (NX-01) (in the case of the latter, they put some production information in the back of the first Enterprise novel which is currently the only specific and official Enterprise production material ever put into print, but predates the Xindi by two years). Miyagawa (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since they are the basis of a major Enterprise through-line, if there is an artcle elsewhere taht covers that sufficiently a redirect may be acceptable. Artw (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several of the !votes above state that there are sources that could be used to bring the article up to standard, but note that it's currently a bit cruft-y. But AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP and the article is not so bad as to be a candidate for WP:TNT. It is clear that sources for an article do exist, and the subject even get coverage in tertiary academic sources like this one. Plus there's the fact that they were apparently the focal plot point of an entire season of Enterprise. A clear keep imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2017 (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.