Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Soong Family (Star Trek)

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 Delete ~~and Redirect to Data (Star Trek).~~ Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soong Family (Star Trek)

Claims cited to unreliable wiki. (well, if there were a References section). Original research for topics' inclusion. Content is mostly plot summary. No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Unlikely search term. Quintessential example of well-intentioned but ultimately unencyclopedic content better suited to Memory Alpha or some such. --EEMIV (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no third-party reliable sources discussing this specific fictional family *as a family*. I don't see how the subject meets the requirements of WP:NOTE. --NellieBly (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the essence of this article is WP:OR. Richard Pinch (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per thorough nomination. All major points are covered. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Fails notability due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search indicates that there are numerous sources which discuss these characters together. The article just needs improvement in accordance with our usual editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Searching for the actual article topic -- "soong family" -- yields nothing related to Star Trek. Data and Lore, whom you appended to the search, of course yield results (which, though, rapidly degenerate into primary sources); your link is a quasi-argument (it doesn't actually point to a particular source) to keep Data (Star Trek), not the article under consideration here. --EEMIV (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You confuse the title and the topic. The particular words used in the title are just a convenient summary. The topic is the group of characters associated with Data's history and my search was a sensible way of identifying sources pertaining to this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The results of your search give no indication as to whether the results actually support the article. All you have provided is a list of sites that happen to mention the terms. Nuttah (talk) 09:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the search indicates numerous authors who discuss the family relationship between these characters. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, which of those source the claim that Ira Graves is the technological grandfather of data? Nuttah (talk) 09:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three sources which testify to this. The repeated contention that this article contains OR seems to be an unsubstantiated falsehood. No example has been given. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those do. You have two review notes that attempt to make the connection and two contextless excerpts from a novel where the data and graves parts are not connected. Nuttah (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we disagree upon the facts of the matter. My general point is that there are numerous sources for this which can be readily found and so the article just needs some cleanup not deletion on the spurious grounds of OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"My general point is that there are numerous sources for this", yet you provide none. If these sources are readily available add them to the article. Nuttah (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided abundant sources. Adding such details to the article seems pointless when editors such as you refuse to accept them. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you haven't, you've provided searches that return places where terms appear somewhere. If you provide a source with context I will reconsider my opinion. However, merely saying a book x mentions family, data and lore somewhere within its 200 pages is not providing a source. Not one of the 'sources' you claim from your search mention Data, Graves and family in the same sentence. Nuttah (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source The Computers of Star Trek states In a sense, Graves is Data's grandfather. - an obvious family relationship. Other sources make the same point and so it is no mere fancy. Construing this as OR is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, the reviewer is assuming that. If it came from the book the Google search would return the page number (as it does for the novel A Time for War, A Time for Peace: The Next Generation #9). Nuttah (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is a direct quote which appears in chapter 6, pages 105-126. The nature of this searching is indicative - I am not willing to expend great time and expense upon this while so many editors threaten to delete it. This is why deletion is quite inappropriate - it does not afford proper time for research and improvement over time in a calm manner per WP:IMPERFECT. Redirection to the article Data (Star Trek) would be a better way of putting the matter on hold. There seems to have been no consideration of such options per WP:BEFORE. There is not even a talk page for this article and so going straight to AFD is too impatient. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research with no indication of sources. Nuttah (talk) 07:03, 13 September 2008 (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.