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--JForget 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe)

[edit]

This in universe plot summary provides no real world context, analysis, critisism or secondary sources to demonstrate notability of this fancruft. --Gavin Collins 07:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 07:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be a bad faith nom. If it were nominated some time in the future, I don't know what my opinion would be. Ichormosquito 21:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Regardless of what WP:FICT states, I can't bring myself to vote for the deletion of such a significant component of such a notable fiction. We better keep Romulan, at least. Ichormosquito 07:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for much the same reasons it's sister article Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe).--Donovan Ravenhull 08:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the parenthetical disambiguator after "Romulan Star Empire"? Romulan Star Empire redirects to Romulan#Romulan Star Empire; that's probably a good target for this title too. cab 10:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response I believe the Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe) is a fictional state derived from the game instructions for Star Fleet Universe board-, card-, and role-playing games, whereas the other link refers to the fictional race derived from the original Star Trek television series. The difference is that the STU version in non-notable. --Gavin Collins 12:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response the 'non-notable' is your opinion only. Web Warlock 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close(as bad faith nom). See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gavin.collins. The nominator is under an RfC for forcing other editors (specifically RPG-inclined ones) to fix articles that he deems as unqualified for WP via AfD. Last time I check contributors are not under the authority of deletionists--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above, also a highly notable race/faction of the SF Battles Universe with over 30 years of it's own development timeline. Web Warlock 12:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable within the context of Star Trek ff m 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable within the context of the game. The nominator has an opinion that most articles related to scifi and fantasy type games are "non-notable", but he's demonstrated no knowledge of what's notable or not - he's just nominated articles for deletion en masse repeatedly. Rray 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what seems to be a possible instance of Wikipedia:Snowball clause. Even if that is not the case, the Romulan Empire has made enough appearances in the highly notable Star Trek univserse that an article on it seems reasonable and sourceable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not about the Romulan race. It's an article about the Romulan race in the context of a game. A lot of people are confused here. This is like arguing that since Derek Jeter is notable, the Derek Jeter in MLB 2k7 is notable and worthy of an article. Smashville 21:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fully understanding that this is in regards to the RPG, not the TV shows. Still notable in relation to the notable game. I hate to add a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguement but considering this AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Klingon Empire (Star Fleet Universe) was a keep less then 3 weeks ago I see no reason for consensus to have changed.--Cube lurker 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The other could probably be brought to DRV...there was a "consensus" but no one actually gave any evidence as to why it was notable. Smashville 22:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that's really a community belief, then why wasn't that brought to DRV instead of nominating a nearly identical article?--Cube lurker 03:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't nominate it, however, since they're not the same article, I don't see how taking one article to DRV would get another deleted. Also, based on the first response, it seems that nominating these articles gets you involved in a flame war. Smashville 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you slightly misunderstood mu comment (and probably my fault for not expressing it clearly). It really wasn't directed solely at you. My meaning was, if this sort of article is inappropriate for WP, why didn't the nominator (same for both articles) take it to DRV, instead of just moving down his list and AFD'ing the next one.--Cube lurker 19:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major race in a major RPG, although it is non canonical with regards to the present Star Trek Universe, this alternative Trek universe has had over 30 years of history and development behind it. KTo288 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith WP:POINT nom. Jtrainor 22:59, 11 October 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.