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. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starfleet Security[edit]

Starfleet Security (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is an article which has just been rescued from certain death as a copyright violation from Memory Alpha, but cites as it sole source a novel written from the perspective of a security officer (and I don't think it's canon either) and the MA article from which it was originally copied and now rewritten, albeit still primarily from an in-universe perspective. Seems to me this isa subject best left in Memory Alpha. Give it a red shirt and put it in the landing party, I say. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of verifiability. Cowman109^Talk 21:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONGEST KEEP EVER: Good Lord, this is getting silly. The copyright issue was investigated by at least three admins and cleared. The article is also full of in-line references to information put forth on Star Trek shows, movies, info from novels, etc. The reference provided at the bottom of the page is the only one I could remember and is actually a pretty intersting book, but there are *hundreds* of other. Starfleet Security is VERY CLEARLY a part of the Star Trek universe established as canon and this article should in no way ever be deleted. -Husnock 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's been a lot of talk about why these articles are getting AfDed this often and this quickly. I can't help the way I feel, and I feel there is more going on here than concern for Wiki policy. This edit sums up my concerns. -Husnock 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Morwen gave a very persuasive rationale for the copyright problem throughout the history, and the article is still a novel synthesis form primary sources. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above, plenty of in-line direct citations to movies and shows and plenty of references available. See below, where Starfleet Security is very specifically mentioned as existing in "The Drumhead". It is almost laughable that this is being proposed for deletion. Speedy Keep is warranted. Would also like to add the existence of several articles on this same subject, mainly:
    • Starfleet Academy
    • Starfleet Engineering Corps
    • Starfleet Command
    • Starfleet Intelligence
    • Starfleet Medical
    • Starfleet Tactical
    • Starfleet Judge Advocate General

Should all of those be deleted as well? (Actually a serious question as some of them probably should at least be merged) -Husnock 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite likely, if they are sourced in the same way. Synthesis from primary sources = original research. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, but all of these are far more well-established in the show than Starfleet Security (apart from Starfleet Tactical). Nobody is disputing there are security guards in Star Trek: the dispute is whether they constitute a department at headquarters and suchforth, as the other branches do indeed appear to : (our article notes the distinction between random engineers on starships, and the Starfleet Engineering Corps, for example). I have checked the dialogue from "The Drumhead" as you suggested, and it seems inconclusive (why is a judge being sent from Starfleet Security?) Morwen - Talk 22:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Starfleet Security is pretty well established, but thats been beat to death. I dont have access to the Drumhead, but its always been one of my favorite episodes. I believe the line is something like "We will be joined by Admiral Heneley (spelling?) from Starfleet Security." And he's not a judge in the episode, hes a security specialist. That should be pretty definite if thats what was said. -Husnock 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I realise it must be a bit difficult to try to deal with this type of thing without access to any sources, but we can't use your recollections as a substitute. I don't have access to the episode, either (just blown my budget buying books and dvds to flesh out TOS episode articles), but the Encyclopedia says Thomas Henry was "admiral in charge of security" (lowercase). Do you agree there is, or at least could be, a distinction between "Starfleet security" (the redshirts, who are under line command) and "Starfleet Security" (some group back home that does high-level stuff), just as with the Engineering departments? Morwen - Talk 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This really is a constructive discussion, but should be carried out at articles talk page. Can we please speedy close this and work on actual article? :) --Cat out 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep, bad faith nom. Same people are afding star trek articles and making an overall mess. The previous nomination was just closed and not son after people pushed for deletion at deletion review. Now they are trying to get canon stuff deleted. Even the novice star trek fan knows that there is a starfleet security... --Cat out 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Coolcat is speaking the truth, sad but true. There appears to be a collection of folks who do not like these articles and are getting progressivly bolder as the AfDs keep ending with keeps and no concensus. I am beginning to wonder if this falls under the "don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" rule. -Husnock 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it your usual habit to go around accusing everyone who disagrees with you of ulterior motives? Or do you restrict this to admins? Perhaps you and Cool Cat could cite some evidence to back your assertion that this is bad faith? Guy (Help!) 21:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't accused a single person of anything. I simply said that I agree with Coolcat and this appears to be happening. I haven't named anyone or made any formal charges or anything like that, however, nor do I plan to do so. As far as evidence of bad faith, Coolcat has stated that above, I will allow him to defend or expand upon it. -Husnock 21:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You know, the "distress the opposition till he disapears" strategy doesn't work on me. Stay on topic. This is an AFD discussion, not a random discussion about me or Husnock... --Cat out 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Then stop making remarks that disparage the motives of anyone who votes against you. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The same people are mass afding many star trek articles. Thats a verifiable fact. I am merely stating that... --Cat out 22:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh look! Another afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet Judge Advocate General --Cat out 23:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I wonder if some people don't want to re-visit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek. This i almost as silly as that was. -Husnock 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As a random note, I was slightly surprised to see there is no "Starfleet Security" entry listed in the official Star Trek Encyclopedia. Morwen - Talk 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That is strange. In "The Drumhead", however, an Admiral arrives from Starfleet Security and is actually cited as being from that branch of Starfleet. -Husnock 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Star Trek Encyclopedia is a nice but incomplete source. Really a shame. But section 31 is established in canon to exist prior to the federation itself as far back as the first four years of the NX program. DS9 Section 31 arcs also established the organization pretty well. I do not see a problem with verifiability. As always a better citation would be better but we have article talk pages for such discussions. AFD is way out of line. --Cat out 21:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Section 31 has been established. But this isn't the AFD for Section 31, which I would strongly vote keep on. Morwen - Talk 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not certain what the actual issue is. It may be a naming discontinuity though it doesn't appear that way. It seems to be a 'legal' Section 31. There had been numerous references to a "starfleet security" in the show but not much of an exploration of it. IIRC they just are a conviniant way to fork the plot with some random last minute report. I do not recall correctly but I believe Miles O'brien underwent a covert operation for starfleet security in a ds9 episode against the notorious Orion Syndicate... --Cat out 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SF Security and Intelligence seemed to get bandied about interchangeably over the series' runs. Hard to keep 'em straight. --EEMeltonIV 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a Starfleet Intelligence article, as well. This is reasonably well established. If we accept User:Cool Cat's contention they represent the same organisation, then they should be merged. I don't accept that, and in any case Military Police style organisation is being envisaged here. Morwen - Talk 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain. I simply have no knowledge wethaer or not STarfleet security and intelligence are the same thing. I am merely suggesting a possibility that needs to be further investigated.

Starfleet Security is more like FBI and Starfleet intelligence more like CIA (what their name implies). Does the star trek encyclopedia have anyhing over this?

--Cat out 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Jesus, even I've seen episodes where Starfleet Security have played a role. What's with all the crap nominations today? Sharkface217 22:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Strong Rewrite: A lot of the material, even in the recently revised version, is still extrapolation and OR, but there's an underlying kernel of notability and verifiability. Hell, if HusnoCkat and I agree, we must be right. (kidding) --EEMeltonIV 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This belongs at a fansite. Jkelly 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A lot of work went into this and it's not a bad article by any stretch of the imagination, but watching the shows and then drawing conclusions based on what you see there is synthesis. It's not that this is bad per se, just that it's unencyclopedic and against policy. I hope the authors will find a better outlet for writing this kind of material. JChap2007 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "Watching the shows and drawing conclusions" is not how this article was written. The material is directly from information which was stated in a live action production or that which was specifically mentioned in a novel/tech manual published by the producers of the show. Very clearly indicated with in-line references to programs and movies with one reference added and others soon to come. -Husnock 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In other words, a synthesis from primary sources. That is pretty much the canonical definition of original research. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No...its a direct account of material put forth by the producers in the show. Starfleet Security is established in nearly every live action prodcution and half of the novels by Pocket Books. Word twisting will not change that. -Husnock 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I love this logic, I really do. So Star Trek Encyclopedia is original research, the show itself is original research... I do not understand you JzG, how the heck are we supposed to write any kind of article if we are not going to be using the sources? I am in fact recommended to use primary sources... --Cat out 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No those are fine, it's the drawing of conclusions from those that are problematic. I'll give you an example: In the 23rd century, Starfleet Security had become an established corps of the Starfleet, apparetly an entirely separate career path from regular (or "Line") personnel of the Starfleet. This is the whole premise on which the article is based, yet there is no source for this. In addition (and I almost forgot), an article on fiction should focus on the real life implications of the subject of the article, rather than merely outlining the plot: what do we have in this article that shouldn't be a minor mention in the Redshirt article? JChap2007 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Starfleet Security exists and is referred to in several of the series. Regan123 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps it's original research, perhaps it's not. However, the bar is high for fancruft - it needs to be better researched, more well-sourced, and of a higher quality to merit inclusion. This doesn't even come close enough to clip the bar from below. Also, censure the users who keep jumping the bandwagon and accusing everyone of bad faith. If there is an organised campaign to remove this drivel, then I would certainly think its effect would be the improvement of the encyclopaedia. Less is more. Chris cheese whine 00:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Guy.Edison 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep por EEMeltonIV. VegaDark 00:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think my problem with this page and the others listed by Husnock is that their existence appears to represent a misnomer as far as WP:FICTION is concerned. The question is not whether if Starfleet were real these bodies would be sufficiently notable for inclusion. They clearly would be. The question is whether they have played a sufficient part in Star Trek to deserve separate articles. These have at time been mentioned and various characters fall within their ambit. But the organisations themselves play only a fringe role. I would suggest coverage of them be limited to a subheading of Departments of Starfleet on the Starfleet page. WJBscribe 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fundamentally re-orient or merge into the appropriate separate articles. The problem with having separate articles about fictional things is that it presents them as existing independently of the shows, in some "fictional universe". This is a problem for a few reasons on Wikipedia, but a major one is: when the show's writers change, the properties of the thing changes; the "history" of Starfleet Security might be changed by a 1990's show when there was some contradictory statement about it in a 1960's show. In comparison, the properties of chemical elements, for example, do not change and they are in themselves self-consistent. Our knowledge of them or theories about them might change, but when they do that is included as a historical element, with reference to the surrounding framework of people and places. Similarly, articles on fictional things must be made with reference to the surrounding framework of the books, television shows, etc. from which they come, which do exist in the real world. Articles ridden with statements like "The predecessor to the current branch of Starfleet Security were the weapons and security personnel of the Earth Starfleet" are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, while "They are frequently depicted in episodes as laying suppressing fire while one of the main characters, for example Captain Archer, runs for a certain objective." and "In the first episode of Season 3, "The Xindi", the MACOs participated in a mission on a mining planet to rescue Captain Archer and Commander Tucker." (MACO) are properly connected with the real world. This is to some extent separate from the sourcing issue. On that matter, if the several descriptions in books, official guides, and plot summaries are not acceptable then the featured article on Bulbasaur is not (all its sources are like this), nor are the many thousands of other articles on fictional characters and television episodes (24, Friends, CSI, That 70's Show) it goes on and on). These are vast categories of articles with no reliable sources (and invariably no sources cited whatsoever). This issue needs to be resolved, but these thousands upon thousands of articles are not going to be fixed piece-meal an AfD here and there. Whether reliable sources on a subject exist cannot be evaluated by a mass AfD, and some of these topics do have reliable sources and warrant independent articles. Also, these articles do have work and information put into them and should be transferred to other wikis; that is not going to happen en masse. Perhaps we need a template with a longer term deleting system; these thousands of articles should not be deleted in successions of sudden 5-day AfDs, but there does need to be some enforcement of Wikipedia content policies. (Separate note, if this is to be morphed in a mass nomination: based on a search of academic journals, newspapers, and magazines, "Starfleet Academy" is far more noteworthy, with many more mentions (though I did not look very hard for reliable sources). I did find, however, happen to find an article in the Journal of Toxicology: Clinical Toxicology which has an apparently thorough review of Star Trek medicine by episodes. These sorts of things exist in abundance for the famous Star Trek, and for other famous fictions. While we should not allow these articles to continue unaltered (or even unmolested), or permit new badly sourced ones to be created, a 5-day AfD is not going to suss out all the books (and Star Trek is the subject of third-party academic, analytical books) or all the magazine articles and this remains a wiki with some articles that are works in progress; these are not living persons.) —Centrx→talk • 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the thing. I agree with you, fundamentally, that if you can put together enough third-party sources that either discuss a fictional work's impact on the real world, or critically analyze the technical merits of the fiction (writing, cinematography, etc.). The problem here is that none of those things exist for Starfleet Security. No one has written a book about how the use of non-lethal methods by Starfleet Security altered popular opinion on alternative methods of law enforcement. And, even if they did, that article would probably be about Star Trek, not Starfleet Security. There is a profound difference between the two, and attempting to extrapolate the importance of Starfleet Security from our hypothetical article is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You're inventing new facts based around your interpretation of the article. Consequentially 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fancrufty from a non-tv source. There's a lot of good mateial here that maybe could supplement the memory alpha page? Or might be added to another Star Trek article. Makgraf 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to back up the misguided aegis of the keep voters...but crufty is hardly worthy basis without backing it up. It can't be transwikied (incompatible license) and IF it's really OR it can't be moved anywhere else. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep — Article needs a little cannonising (is that a word.. :o) - however we should never censor material like this, it is of historic interest, and of course interests a large portion of Wikipedians. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, JChap2007, Chriscf. And is SHOUTING VERY LOUD really necessary ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very important part of the Star Trek world. --Oakshade 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, it's not a very important part of the real world.' Consequentially 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Emperor Palpatine isn't real, either, but nobody would try and delete his article. star Wars fans would probably come and find your house if you did that. -Husnock 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because, unlike Starfleet Security, the Emperor has achieved iconic status in popular culture. The character is referenced continuously in other fiction media, and has been the subject of several critically analytical pieces from outside Star Wars fandom. The article reflects that -- consider the fact that 90% of the article isn't about his fictional life, but the real-world process that led to the creation of the character, and its impact on media. Your inability to distinguish between in-universe importance and real-world importance is a continuing theme in these debates, and a somewhat disturbing one. The important part isn't whether or not a person or thing is "real" or "fiction," but the kind of impact it has on culture and media. Consequentially 04:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to at least lighten the mood by knocking Star Wars a bit, sorry you didn't see that (or didn't want to). Sorry also that I "disturb you". Starfleet Security has been around for 30 years with the "redshirt sent to the planet and killed by the alien" appearing in multiple other medai sources. I am kind of ending my defense of thsi article. I have said all that can be said and the article has pictures, good info, and sources, and room to expand. I am confident we will get at least a "No concensus" if not a firm "Keep". I still feel this article should never have been AfD, much less 5 minutes after I attempted to expand and rewrite. But, that too has been beat to death. -Husnock 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  In the grand scheme of things, this is probably a minor point -- but please ditch the hyperbole. The AfD did not come "5 minutes" after your revising -- it came 100 minutes after your last edits to the article (restoring content after Morwen's unrelated-to-this-AfD-copyvio-thing and adding an MA link). Indeed, it came over 13 hours after the end of your long revision process. --EEMeltonIV 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Heck, a five-minute difference could be explained away as an error, i.e. AfD of pre-revision. Recognizing the 13-hour difference might even lend credence to your theory that it's something personal. (Although I still think that's a crap nonsense hogwash bogus! theory.) --EEMeltonIV 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Its been around for 30 years because the series has been around for 30 years, and that is by no means an indication of Security's notability. Beyond that, the "expendable redshirt" is not synonymous with Starfleet Security. The phenomenon is already covered within Wikipedia, invalidating the need for an article specifically dealing with this plot device. There is a profound difference between exploring the dramatic significance of Crewman #40129 and what you're trying to do here. Consequentially 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's notable enough in the Star Trek universe, and mentioned enough, to be included here (though it could use some fleshing out, to make it clear to casual readers how it has a different mandate to Starfleet). The redshirt phenomenon is a bonus, and gives Starfleet Security a notability not far from Imperial Stormtroopers. (Both notable as cannon-fodder, unfortunately, but still... ) Quack 688 04:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in the series isn't notability. Being mentioned in third-party critical analysis by reliable sources is notability. Consequentially 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should look at the examples in WP:FICTION, and see if the actual guideline agrees with you. Quack 688 07:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "third-party critical analysis by reliable source"? Cite an example so I have an idea. --Cat out 07:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This for one. Or this. Maybe here. Even this. And this too. Consequentially 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:OR and all keep arguments fail to meet any semblance of policy otherwise. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 07:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Doesn't every star trek article fail OR in your mind? --Cat out 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Please see Star Trek, or United Federation of Planets for properly sourced articles with no OR. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with rewrite. Notable, mentioned often in the series. Verified, just watch the series. Being mentioned in the series is notability. Being mentioned in third party sources is verifiability. It does exist, but needs some editing to get rid of the conjecture based on facts, and rewriting to clarify that it's about a fictional group in a fictional universe. Proto::► 12:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - illuminating, even though only virtually (after all, it is fictional).  The Transhumanist   13:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but obviously not speedy keep. It's pretty darned crufty, but it's notable anyway (the subject in fairly notable in the Star Trek universe); besides, I might like to point out that I got drawn into WP through fancruft. And lastly, I'm not very impressed with the delete arguments (e.g., OR, or "it doesn't exist in the real world - as if nothing fictional can exist on WP). Patstuart^talk|edits 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't find an article that fails WP:OR to be a good deletion argument? Good luck with that. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just that I find the OR argument to be an obfuscation in this case; really, I think your reasoning is you don't think it's notable, or it's fancruft. But the OR argument being used here seems to be saying, no one with expertise in a field can add anything to an article on it, even if their arguments are sourced. Strictly speaking, anybody who adds anything to Wikipedia, if it's not copied word for word from a source, is using some "OR". The OR requirement is meant to say, "don't quote your own research" - not "don't write an article which you know something about". Patstuart^talk|edits 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find two things wrong with your statement. One, I admonish people above that cruft is not and never will be a deletion criteria, for if it was, Pokemon would be my very FIRST target. But more importantly, can you explain how this unsourced section here is anything but OR, by which I mean "It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;":

Starfleet Security has also been influenced by Section 31 over its years of existence. At least one member of the former Earth Starfleet was a member of Section 31 and Section 31 has been suspected of being involved with the Khitomer conspiracy as well as the illegal cloaking device development onboard the USS Pegasus.

--Elaragirl^Talk|Count 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not a very good article, but it's a start. If you don't like that it lacks sources, source it, or leave people who are working on it the time to do it. Zocky | picture popups 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is more that no sources appear to exist, other than watching the original media. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Non-notable fictional organisation from a (notable) series. No valid references whatsoever. No evidence that it appears anywhere in any of the TV series. Written entirely in in-universe style. No evidence that this has any importance whatsoever outside of Star Trek universe. I do not wish to call it cruft because I am too polite, but some many will argue that that is what it is. -- Ekjon Lok 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "No evidence that it appears in any of the TV Series"? Starfleet Security guards are seen throughout the Original Series, Next Generation, all of the movies, and a Starfleet Security Admiral is seen at least twice and, in those cases, directly referred as being an admiral of Starfleet Security. Its present enough in the series. -Husnock 03:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  He's rght. The same thing can be said about shoes in Star Trek. Shoes appear in every single episode, and are worn by the main characters. I suggest we get on with it and create Star Trek Shoes while we're at it. Consequentially 05:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Is your position so weak that you have to make sarcastic remarks of other people's comments? There actually is an artile about Starfleet uniforms, of which shoes would be included. I've redirected it for you since you want the article created. -Husnock 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is just ridiculous, and please avoid making a point. And anyway my position is the following: in order to justify the inclusion of a Star Trek topic in Wikipedia, the topic must have importance or notability in the wider world, i.e. outside the Star Trek universe. There are many Star Trek topics, people, objects etc. that are indeed notable outside Star Trek. Worf and Picard are well-known and notable; Klingons or warp drives are also notable; but there are thousands of objects, people, organisations etc. that only have in-universe importance. These should not be included in Wikipedia. The Memory Alpha is exactly the place to put all these things. And anyway see my comment on Memory Alpha below. -- Ekjon Lok 12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• An important and pertinent comment. After clicking the Memory Alpha link from the "External Links" section, I see that the article on "Starfleet Security" there is extremely small, a barest stub, much smaller than the Wikipedia article that is under discussion now. Why is it that people insist on spamming Wikipedia filling Wikipedia with questionable information when there are more appropriate, dedicated projects, that would welcome these contributions with open arms? -- Ekjon Lok 12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per EEMeltonIV. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:28, 8 December 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.