Deletion of Law in Star Trek (second nomination)

Comment: i feel this nomination is a , no offence intended
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: or '''Stubify'''  Most of the "references" are Star Trek episodes.  They are also referenced in a manner inconsistent with a general purpose encylopedia (listing TOS and assuming the reader knows what that means, as opposed to a proper {{tl|cite episode}}.)  This article is a textbook |synthesis of source materials.  It is based on a series of "A and B, therefore C" (the section quoted above about the death penalty in Star Trek is a good example).  If someone wants to write a new article based on ''secondary sources'', that's fine, but this article needs to start from scratch or be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: This article is a prime example of both what |Wikipedia is not supposed to be and |ignoring all rules. Voting to delete would be meaningless unless most of :Category:Star Trek goes with it, along with similar stuff like :Category:Star Wars, :Category:The Lord of the Rings, and other topics certainly worthy of articles, but not in depth examinations of topics like :Category:Star Trek ships which includes vessels in its subcategories that appeared briefly USS Defiant (NCC-1764)|in an episode. Many people who do not enjoy these topics consider articles like this to be |useless information about a fictional subject, while those who support the article and others of its kind are |simply doing what we told them to do
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:IAR||WP:NOT||WP:IAR)

Comment: This article is terrible; however, AFD is not article cleanup.  But the claim at hand is that this is not a |verifiable topic.  It isn't?  There is a whole book about the topic (Star Trek: Visions of Law and Justice, ISBN 0966808029).  At least one chapter of that book (the one by Sharf) was originally published in the University of Toledo Law Review.  There is further discussion of the issue in other scholarly sources as well, such as the article "Law and Film: Introduction" in the Journal of Law and Society 28 (1): 1-8 and even explicit comparisons with real world law and politics, including "On a Wagon Train to Afghanistan: Limitations on Star Trek's Prime Directive" in the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 2003
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: the series is notable, and the concept of law within it is notable, so the article should be retained. With that established, it is sufficient to rely on |primary sources for much of the material. I acknowledge that it could do with trimming
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PSTS)

Comment: This is a perfectly good stub, '''with a |reference to a law review article,''' for Jimbo's sake!  It's better than most other law stubs
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: no vote). The article is junk, a mix of plot summary and original research. However, somebody in the real world has addressed it as a serious topic.http://www.tamu.edu/upress/BOOKS/2005/chaires.htm Is there enough material out there for a rewrite that passes ? I have no idea
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)