Deletion of Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems (third nomination)

Comment: and transwiki. As other commentors have noted, the  content and use of weasel words ("alleged", "some fans") can't easily be removed from this article. That said, I'm sure it'll find a happy home over on the Star Trek wiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Well done, but pure . Beam up to Trekkie Wiki if so inclined
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: quite blatantly |original research and . The fact that it is reasonably well-written and is formatted properly, and has obviously had a lot of work put into it, does not change the fact that it is clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia. This won't stop mass voting by Trekkers stalemating it into a no consensus... as usual. (oops, no-one's supposed to admit that AFD is actually still a vote tally done by the closing admin are they? It is officially a 'discussion' now, isn't it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NOT)

Comment: Five references for 35K of text?  This is  | original research.  If it has been through two prior AFDs and remains in this shabby state, there is no reason to believe that it will be cleaned up.  Finally, this is about fiction, and at least in my opinion the only portion of the article that has any hope of being encyclopedic is the introduction, but without the body the intro isn't article worthy.  We already have a summary at Star_Trek:_Enterprise#Continuity, that might be able to use one paragraph (tops) about specific continuity issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: trekcruft and , not that I dislike the article, it is well written and NPOV but it just isn't right for wikipedia.  Hopefully it can find a happy home on Memory Alpha
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: It's |original research. The facts are cited, but the conclusions drawn from them aren't. That makes them OR
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: This is clearly |original research in violation of wikipedia policy.  The article cites no secondary sources and consists primarily of fan opinion and speculation.  To keep this article would be to determine that wikipedia policy does not matter as long as a subject is popular enough that a large number of people are willing to defend its inclusion regardless of wikipedia's rules
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: Words like ''alleged'' and weasel words such as ''some fans'' make this problematic.  The article reads as |original research and does border on |cruftiness.  It would be better off cleaned up, substantiated - i.e. nothing alleged about it - and placed on http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Main_Page Memory Alpha, where it would have a greater audience
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:CRUFT)

Comment: A good read in a Trekkie way, but full of unencyclopedic analysis and |original research. Move to the Star Trek wiki if they'll have it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)