Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agonizer

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 Merge to Mirror Universe (Star Trek). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:39Z

[edit] Agonizer

Agonizer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Star Trek device that is non-notable independently of the two episodes it appears in. No sources, so it fails verifiability, which is non-negotiable. Prod removed by anonymous user without giving a reason. Chardish 01:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mirror Universe (Star Trek).--TBCΦtalk? 01:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, episodes are primary sources so it definitely doesn't fail WP:V. Cburnett 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Being verifiable does not make a subject notable as well. Though it's true that this object does exist in the series, it has only appeared in two episodes.--TBCΦtalk? 02:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • What is your notability litmus test for this? Cburnett 02:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)--TBCΦtalk? 02:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep it is uninteresting and WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it meets inclusion criteria, as it is sourced, and verifiable. Jerry lavoie 02:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What? Are we looking at the same article here? Agonizer, the article up for deletion, has no sources. - Chardish 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Television series episodes are sources. There is huge precedent for that. Can we not say that Homer Simpson worked at a Nuclear Power Plant unless the Washington Post or Oprah says it? Jerry lavoie 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, television shows are legitimate sources. However, the article has no sources. Sources definitely exist, but they need to be cited in the article (see WP:CITE.) Unfortunately an article requires multiple, non-trivial, reliable third-party sources to achieve notability. Star Trek episodes, books, and officially licensed products fail the "third-party" requirement. - Chardish 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (Change to Merge to M/U article instead> it's a device in some episodes of Star Trek, that's notablity enough on its own that at the least would warrant a redirect, but appearing in more than one episode makes it better to have one short article on it. If you want sources, there's bound to be something like [1] this that's a bit more adult. This is Trek, I don't have a problem seeing sources as something that can be found. Mister.Manticore 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Notability is not subjective. We have objective criteria for notability here, which this article does not meet. - Chardish 05:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I disagree with your statement, notability is often very subjective (mostly because the criteria is so often variable, almost any elected politician will get an article, but are they truly notable? I doubt it). Butyour claim is meaningless anyway, as it's pretty clear Star Trek is notable. Nobody is going to argue that. This is an aspect of Star Trek. As such, some coverage of it is appropriate, even if it's just to say "The Agonizer is a pain-causing punishment device found in the following episodes/Novels/whatever of Star Trek". Not covering it would be silly. Wikipedia is not paper, this article is not silly, it's sourceable, and it doesn't violate NPOV. So while i can accept merging it, deleting it is just the wrong idea. Mister.Manticore 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • No, notability is not subjective. This is consensus on Wikipedia. Please familiarize yourself with the criteria for notability before you make cases for or against it. - Chardish 21:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I am aware there are people on Wikipedia with that opinion. I believe they are mistaken, because nobody has an objective criteria for notability, believe it or not, it is ultimately based on subjective observation that "enough" other sources have covered the subject. And just throwing links to various pages around doesn't make your argument for you, not when those pages themselves lack substantive and convincing arguments to justify their position. WP:N is just a guideline, nothing more. If you wish to persuade me, try offering arguments related to the subject at hand, not throwing page links around. This is supposed to be about the Agonizer isn't it? As something in Star Trek, which regardless of your opinion as to whether notability is subjective or not, is notable, it therefore becomes a question of how best to cover the subject. It's a discrete and independent device, and appears in more than one episode...but those episodes cover the same subject, which has its own article, so why not merge it there? Mister.Manticore 04:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not trying to persuade you of anything. I'm trying to help you out, because (and I apologize if I'm wrong!) it doesn't seem like you have a clear understanding of what guidelines on Wikipedia are, nor do you seem to have an understanding of what the idea of consensus on Wikipedia is. In a nutshell: guidelines are to be followed unless there's a very good reason not to. I'm "throwing page links around" because I'm trying to refer you back to where I derive the reasoning for my arguments, and to illustrate that I derive them from guidelines and policies agreed on by Wikipedia consensus. I apologize if I've come across as harsh; I'm simply trying to be helpful. Remember: Taco Bell is notable, but not every item on the Taco Bell menu is notable. Time (magazine) is notable, but not every issue they've printed is notable. And, yes, Star Trek is notable, but not every device, ship, and minor character that's appeared is notable. - Chardish 20:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
            • And you seem to have no idea what I'm saying, or how you're coming across. I'm trying not to be offensive here, but you have not been persuasive, your methods are ineffective, and it's not going to change my mind or help me in any way. Sorry, but the net benefit to me is nil or less. Honestly, I'd rather you stuck to discussing the subject at hand, rather than addressing this other problem. And to try to get back to that, look at it this way, is there any question that it's appropriate to have an article on the episodes of the Trek series this device appears in? Describing those episodes without mentioning this device would be silly, don't you think? It's one thing to not mention every person in a group scene, but this device provided significant importance. Not mentioning it would leave a major hole in explaining how the Mirror universe was different from the "real" universe. Now does this mean an article on it? Maybe not, but a redirect is cheap. However, we have the problem that it's in more than one episode...of different series in the same universe. So that may lead to a different decision. It's not quite right for an article on Devices in Star Trek, but luckily in this case, with several episodes of Trek series (and a few books), there's enough content that the whole Alternate universe warrants an article. Thus Agonizer can be properly described and redirected there. If that's not satisfactory to you, please offer an explanation as to why. And no, an argument about how not every item on Taco Bell's menu should have an article will not serve. Mister.Manticore 02:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry if I've come across as offensive. I'm backing away before this degenerates into a flame war. Goodbye. - Chardish 05:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect I don't think it needs deleted but it can't stand on its own as it is, redirect it to Mirror Universe (Star Trek). Darthgriz⁹⁸ 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. Mister.Manticore 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep (and give to recent change patrollers!) semper fictilis 05:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mirror Universe (Star Trek). Having articles on any piece of technology that appeared in only two episodes of Star Trek is a license to print cruft. What next, individual articles on any disposable crew member with two appearances?--Nydas^(Talk) 10:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete With repect....A tool/object used in a couple of Star Wars episodes??? No sources so it fails WP:V and to be honest it definitel fails WP:NN.Tellyaddict^{Editor review!} 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

First, are you even voting in the right place? There is a fair difference between Star Wars and Star Trek. Again, the episodes themselves are primary sources. Cburnett 14:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong Redirect If there is no out of universe info then why have a page when you have alpha memory. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Mirror Universe - Meeting "verifiability" does not equate to "Notability", which this article lacks. There are also certain requirements befitting that whole "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". It also contains some Original research elements (e.g. "it is believed...")  BIGNOLE   (Question?)  (What I do)  19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Mirror Universe. ConDem^Talk 20:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to mirror universe, as noted above, and merge any information not already there. One piece of equipment in two episodes, unless it's a very major part of the canon, really doesn't need a standalone article, to my eyes. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to mirror universe per above. Just H^{editor review} 22:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge per analogy with WP:FICT for minor characters. --Pak21 15:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to appropriate Star Trek page. The page should become a disambiguation page, as there are other fictional devices known by the name. Shrumster 20:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you please list or describe some of these other devices? If this is true, then I would agree with a merge and disambiguate. Mister.Manticore 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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.