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 of the debate was keep. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Hidden Frontier[edit]

• Delete. Fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  00:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Star Trek cruft. MilesToGo 01:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this seems to be a notable fan production. Note that Star Trek: New Voyages also has an article and both fan productions are mentioned in the "Canonicity and other storylines" section of the Star Trek article. It has plenty of non-trivial google hits and has been mentioned in Variety magazine [1]. I had never heard of it until just now ... but then again, after the debacle of Enterprise, I haven't kept up with the Star Trek scene. Anyway, it looks notable to me. BigDT 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just downloaded an episode ... unwatchable is putting it mildly ... the CG is amazing, but everyone has a green glow (from a green screen) around them ... and calling the acting bad is putting it mildly. The only saving grace is that B&B aren't there to screw it up. BigDT 01:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Upon watching the first few episodes, I considered it really cheesy, but I have to say that their production values and acting have improved as they've continued. Michael Robson 15:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Erik the Rude 03:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not only a well-respected and popular fanfilm series, I'd almost go so far as to say it's a bad faith nomination, based on the WCityMike's apparent attempts to delete every Trek fanfilm article on Wikipedia, when so many of these are clearly notable. MikeWazowski 03:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm not going to do anything formal, but kindly don't assume bad faith or attack my morality, Mr. Wazowski. And everyone has their own feeling of what is notable. I don't believe the articles I have nominated for AfD are notable and do merit deletion — and obtaining a sense of community opinion on same is hardly a bad faith process. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment "A well-respected and popular fanfilm series." Where I have heard that before? Oh, that's right. In about five other places on this page. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  04:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As above, a notable, respected, and popular fanfilm series. Tachyon01 04:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A "well-respected and popular fanfilm series" sounds like a contradiction in terms almost. More to the point, how the hell do you measure whether a fanfilm is "well-respected and popular"? --Calton | Talk 05:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The Variety article pushes it just over the notability bar. It and New Voyages are pretty well the two main productions of this subgenre. 23skidoo 05:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. HF, Exeter and New Voyages are notable films and should not be deleted. HF is the longest running Star Trek fanfilm, with the largets body of work. They've been featured in Variety magazine and have an extremely large following. Nick Cook 06:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC) This comment was accidentally posted at the AfD discussion directly below this one. I've just cut&pasted it here, leaving the content unchanged. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Calton. Reyk _YO! 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fan fiction is generally not notable, but this looks like a very popular series. JIP | Talk 08:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable fancruft. Being popular with a small collection of people with internet connections and a wikipedia accounts does not justify an entry on Wikipedia. See also, flashcruft, flashartists, furries etc etc etc etc. Copy it to Memory Alpha if it's not already there. - Motor (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Memory Alpha does not accept articles on fan fiction - see [2] - their mission is information on the canonical Star Trek universe. It isn't a question of notability for them, it's a question of being off-topic. BigDT 11:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is actually a notable, popular and long running fan series. Ben W Bell talk 09:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just not popular enough. -- GWO
• Keep, This is the longest running fanchise out there. It inspired just about all of the current fan film producers to take up the camera. JusticeCEO 11:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable as an example of fan-produced/amateur film production as a whole --Mhking 12:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this surpasses cruft, and hovers peacefully on the event horizon of notability. A little more lead paragraph info and a little less episode documentation wouldn't hurt, though. Colonel Tom 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this fan made series are usually non-notable, but this is exceptional. If its non-notable, I believe it would only have one season not seven, notable fan film. --Terence Ong 14:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fanfic is rarely suitable article material, but as Terence Ong has stated above, the sheer number of episodes this has generated would seem to make it something of an exception to the rule.--Isotope23 14:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Kirok and others Su-laine.yeo 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - while I don't particular care for the series, it's definitely notable for its influence on the fanfilm community and longevity. TheRealFennShysa 15:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete more trekcruft— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a notable fan production. It also has very active forums with 60,743 Posts in 3,053 Topics by 2,418 Members, which means it is not something that someone is doing independently. —Mets501^talk 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable fan fiction. (For what it's worth, although I'm an ST fan, I'm not a fan of ST fan fiction. I found this through WP:AFD and WP:ANI, not by an "invitation".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep - if we're going to have any fanfic type stuff listed here, then this is the one to have. not an st fan. frymaster 19:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete nonnotable fanfic/fancruft. Please find a or start your own fanfiction star trek wiki if you want this online Bwithh 20:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Hidden Frontier is anything but "non-notable." In addition they already have their own wikipedia and a very active circle of fans. That those fans are limited to Star Trek fandom does not make them non-notable.

It's great that you have your wiki. so please transwiki Bwithh 23:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per discussion. -- Wikipedical 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Variety article and IMDB. Easily verifiable. Ziggurat 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've heard of it, and I'm nto exactly a big Trekker. It seems notable to me. Ace of Sevens 09:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a fairly notable series, unlike most random fan-fiction this is well respected and heard of by people outside the community Wolfsbane Kane 12:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - They're also listed in a variety of other news source as well, including CNN. IMDB.com also has a page dedicated to this fan series as well. Despite the fact that it may be of poor quality or laughable storylines, it does have the virtue of being the Longest Running Fan Series for Star Trek, and one of the first to attempt to sucessfully recreate the Live Action series style from the professional TV series productions - 59.167.44.106 00:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep if any fan films are notable, this is. Eluchil404 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Just in being a venture lasting many years with a large following grants it being in Wiki. Wiki is not just about history and many works of literature that are separate from the original venture, such as in Star Wars have been allowed to remain so this should be allowed to have its own page. Wiki is about bringing knowledge to the people and it would be inappropriate to make it harder to get information of this fan series. Lord_Hawk 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC-8)
• Keep - with a large amount of television shows on this site already, i see no reason why a web-based production, albeit a fanfilm, cant have a place here. Arkadyfolkner 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is this user's first edit on Wikipedia, and his sole contributions have been to this vote
• Keep or Merge maybe be non-notable to people outside of the community but notable within the Star Trek Fan Film Community. PirateGent 15:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per Nick Cook, Kirok of L'Stok, Lord Hawk, and Arkadyfolkner. If anything, though, the page should be improved, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Robson (talk • contribs) 10:29, June 8, 2006
• Keep - Articles like this are the reason I began getting involved with Wikipedia several years ago. Something should not be deleted because a small number consider it stupid or unnecessary. This is supposed to be a fountain of knowledge, an Encyclopedia that covers all subjects. If you remove this and similar articles, what is to prevent someone from making a case to remove all articles about other small subjects. When someone is curious about something, this needs to remain the place to look, and if you remove this article, you are taking away one of the valuable assets of this be a free (in charge and thought) encyclopedia, focusing on things that For-Profit encyclopedias don't focus on. TEG 17:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep strictly because I don't understand the nomination. --JJay 00:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - the article is self-serving at best, incomplete and useless at worst 65.113.125.77 01:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Worth keeping, as side note, someone deleted my earlier vote to keep, if this happens again that someone will get themselves reported. Arkadyfolkner 05:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't vote twice, and your earlier vote wasn't deleted, as a moment's search through the page would've revealed — it was moved to the bottom of the vote [3], because AfD votes are listed in chronological order, top to bottom. (WP:AFDM#Refactoring the discussion thread: Some new users add comments at the top of the discussion instead of at the bottom. It is appropriate to move those comments to restore the logical/chronological order.) The nature of my action was also explicitly stated in the edit description itself, which you evidently also appeared to overlook before you decided to assume bad faith. Sadly, such assumptions are more the rule than the exception around here. — Mike •  05:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you find time in between writing your eloquent AfD noms, please see WP:Bite. --JJay 22:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you find time inbetween writing your eloquent snarks, please see WP:NOFEEDING. And if you feel the need to reply to this remark, please do so on my talk page, although I'd much prefer you didn't. — Mike •  00:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd rather do it here. You write one word noms, but seven lines to rag on a new user. I reiterate: see WP:bite. --JJay 02:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are a plethora of points you and I could engage on this discussion. Whether my actions were warranted or not. Whether you're being civil or not. Whether you're assuming bad faith or not. Whether you're disrupting the AfD process to make a point or not. Whether editors have to abide by guidelines. But the fact is, I'm enjoying my weekend, and it does in fact take two people to argue. So I'm afraid you're just going to have to satisfy yourself on this one. — Mike •  03:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Strange that it bothers you that I cite one link. I suggest you read it while enjoying your weekend. --JJay 03:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable series, natch! DillPickle 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Our series is being described as "non-notable" by a few. How are they defining "notable" that we somehow fail? How do we BECOME notable, and therefore worthy of continued inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnWhiting (talk • contribs) 14:12, June 11, 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Aside from it being a well known fan project, the series itself is an example of the effects a franchise such as Star Trek has on fans and followers and, in this case, the internet community. Therefore it should be kept on a site that promotes learning. decapattack_uk 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has an IMDB entry and is covered in non-Star Trek blogs. I'd say it's notable enough Sumergocognito 04:18, 15 June 2006 (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.