Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems (third nomination)

message: **You could cite hundreds of examples from episodes, and it would still be OR, since the analysis and synthesis of that information is original. The actual number of citations is not relevant, per se - what is important is whether the citations support the conclusions drawn. Almost none of the references I can see in the article are supporting the actual arguments made, but simply verifying other incidental facts. David L Rattigan 20:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually a quick look at the last AFD shows there were 9 in favour of deletion and only 7 in favour of keep. I personally think it should have been deleted instead of a declaration of non consensus. While there are a lot of sources, that isn't the point. The majority of the article is based on unsourcable opinion. While you can easily state, that this person said xx in this episode, the article always goes on to draw conclusions and provide opinioons that "some fans" expressed. This makes the article original research and opinion. This article also has to stand on its own, what other articles exist on wikipedia is immaterial to this discussion, but if you are going to base your argument on that, it shows its weakness. No one is trying to remove every shred of information about Star Trek from wikipedia. They're trying to remove original unsourced opinion that doesn't provide any objective encyclopedic information. Regardless of the source of that opinion and what its formed from, the result is an opinionated article. --Crossmr 20:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a gross exageration and distortion of fact. A quick read of the page shows only 5 places where fans are mentioned, and in none of them was their opinion used to draw conclusions. They could be deleted right here and now with little impact on the article. The article is far from relying on fan theories, as you try to make it sound. Frankly, the fact you try to misrepresent the article to this extent show how weak your case for deletion is. -- Ritchy 20:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is only an example of the weasel words used in this article. The article draws conclusions on every point without citing a source for that opinion. Wikipedia is not a place to be drawing conclusions. It is a place to provide facts.--Crossmr 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is not basing the arguments on fan theories, what is the article basing the arguments on? Where have those opinions come from if not from fans? They are certainly not sourced. I am an inclusionist and have no problem with articles from fans about subjects they care about, no matter how obscure. But original research is one of the few official policies Wikipedia has, and this article fails it. David L Rattigan 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Ritchy's Strong Keep

message: Ritchy wrote:
:I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be dense or anything, but I just don't see it. I take it you mean the "cloaking" section of the article, right? The conclusion that is drawn in that section is that there is a clear conflict between "Balance of Terror", where cloaking technology was thought to be only theoretically possible until it was seen working on a Romulan ship (citation is given), and Enterprise, where technology is commonly seen and used on many episodes (a list could be given, I guess), and cloaking Romulan ships are even encountered (a reference is given on that). If there's anything you'd consider "original research" in there, I just don't see it. Next, a popular fan theory accounting for the discrepency is given and debunked based on the episode information. This part of the section is less solid, I recognise that. However, it could easily be deleted, with no impact on the article overall.
The information taken from episodes is fine. However, when you analyse that information without providing a verifiable source for the analysis, it is Wikipedia:Original research. Debunking information, unless the content of the debunking is supported by a source, is original analysis. Whether the reasoning and logic is good or not is besides the point - it is still original research. To get around that you would have to provide more than just info from the episodes - you would have to provide a credible source that actually debunked the theory in the way you described. David L Rattigan 20:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if one episode says A, and another episode says not A, is it original research to point out that there's a contradiction between them? Because that's basically what the article does. Granted, it's not always as clear as A vs. not A, but the principle is there. -- Ritchy 22:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: to me the article always seems to go on to draw conclusions though and justify everything on opinion that is the problem. --Crossmr 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not. It cites the two episodes that say A and not A, with quotes usually. That's not an opinion. It then points out the problem. That may be drawing a conclusion, in so far as you can consider saying that two contradicting sources of information are contradicting each other is "drawing a conclusion", but it's still not an opinion. -- Ritchy 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, the article does not simply stop at A and not A. It begins with this and then goes on to propose arguments for and against the inconsistencies and analyses the data to suggest potential harmonizations - all without citations. This kind of unverified analysis is precisely what Wikipedia:Original research forbids. David L Rattigan 23:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying "original research"

message: :Another concern is even in the title of this article "alleged". By who? The fans? Is there a credible source or is just a conclusion drawn from message boards which isn't considered a credible source for basing content on. --Crossmr 20:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "alleged" in the title simply means that there is no official concensus on whether or not there are continuity errors in ENT. It is not uncommon to use the word "alleged" in Wikipedia article titles when the article deals with debated or uncertain information - for example, List of alleged al-Qaeda members and Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible. -- Ritchy 22:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then you want to use Wikipedia to draw that conclusion? --Crossmr 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends. Do you think the people who wrote the List of alleged al-Qaeda members wanted Wikipedia to conclude that these people are terrorists? Or that the people who wrote the Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible wanted Wikipedia to take an anti-Christian stance? -- Ritchy 22:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  again I'm going to point out that we're not discussing other articles. Though I do believe there is a policy or guideline on speculation somewhere (which I can't seem to find right now) that requires a certain level of interest for speculation. Certainly not everyone within the trek communities cares to speculate on it, and its very unlikely anyone outside it would care at all. On the other hand things like Al qaeda and the bible draw much higher attention and interest.  I don't believe Star Trek as popular as it is, on this particular issue reaches anywhere near the level of interest Al qaeda or the bible have.  As much as a few hardcores treat it like that... --Crossmr 23:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  and it should be pointed out both articles you cite are disputed as well one for PoV and cleanup, the other for factuality. Again, not the point, but they certainly don't make any kind of case for keeping this article. --Crossmr 23:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not trying to compare, much less equal, all these pages. I'm simply pointing out that having articles with the word "alleged" in the title isn't the unthinkable scandal that you made it sound like. -- Ritchy 01:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not like the word alleged is the only problem that exists with the article as a whole.  Its just part of the whole package of issues with this page. --Crossmr 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just typical of your approach to this VfD. Find something, no matter how trivial, like the word "alleged" in the title or a handful of references to fans that could easily be deleted, then blow it out of proportions. Then, with no regards for proper procedues (which would dictate that you put up a "cleanup" or "NPOV" notice or any other you feel is needed, then discuss it on the talk page) and no regards for past VfD, you start screaming DELETE! at the top of your lungs. I should probably be reporting you for vandalism. What you're doing is certainly more subtle than the typical vandal who just walks in and replaces entire pages with the word "poop" until he's banned, but it sums up to the same thing. -- Ritchy 04:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing worth saving in this article in the context of this encyclopedia. While the article is good, it just doesn't have a place here. Cleaned up, PoV or otherwise. This is why it was put up for AFD. If memory alpha doesn't mind OR articles like this, then it has a home there. Wikipedia is not an exhaustive collection of everything ever written. --Crossmr 04:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The word "alleged"

message: *:All of the speculation, conclusions, and justifications would need to be removed. But even removed that, that doesn't stop it from being fancruft and having only a small group interested in it. --Crossmr 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responses to Nae'blis's keep 

message: * comment So when do we get the final verdict on whether or not it will survive afd? Magic Pickle 15:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  conclusion/end of AFD 

message: Crossmr, will you work toward factualizing/de-ORing this article with Magic Pickle and others? I realize you may not care, particularly, about this subject, but your interactive approach right now with MP is already improving the article. We're showing right now that it can be improved instead of deleted. If you don't want any such responsibility/task/obligation, I'll take on the imitation of your no-nonsense style as a personal challenge, since I don't like the article as currently (previously) written, but think it should exist in some form. -- nae'blis (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly as we all have seen, there was little, to no, time given to me to rework the article. While crossmr may have had a point about the article's flaws, I don't think (I'm sure he would agree) that crossmr should be the sole authority for approving the re-emergence of this article. I mainly communicated with crossmr in an attempt to show willing. I feel the way forward would be to de-OR it, perhaps rename it, and put it back. Whether or not we go through afd again is another matter. Magic Pickle 00:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Challenge