This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "The Origins of the Star Trek Phenomenon: Gene Roddenberry, the Original Series, and Science Fiction Fandom in the 1960s".
- If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
- If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
- If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".
In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
Deletion rationale
Memory Alpha is not for advertising our personal Star Trek works, nor is it for posting original research, which this book is. 31dot (talk) 22:30, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
Hello Fans,
I thought fans would be interested in a book that describes how the Star Trek Phenomenon started and how fandom in the 1960s had an integral part in creating the Star Trek community. It is quite customary in the academic community to inform others about your work to let fellow scholars and others interested in your topic know where they can find well-researched information. I was only trying to let others interested in this topic know where they can read reliable well-researched information as a public service to all fans and scholars. Apparently, this is not allowed on Memory Alpha.
Sincerely,
Laura J. Sweeney– The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sween013 (talk • contribs).
- The level of interest is not the issue, as it sounds like an interesting subject; it is simply that this is probably not the proper forum to do so. 31dot (talk) 01:21, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
- Second. Unofficial is unofficial, until it's not. - Aatrek 17:12, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced we *should* delete it. It's a reference book, or at least what we categorize as a reference book. We have plenty of unofficial reference books on the site already... consider all the books by James Van Hise and others via Schuster & Schuster, for example. Sweeney's book is self-published, but I'm not sure that alone should disqualify it, either. Schuster & Schuster wasn't by any stretch a mainstream publisher. And there are many other examples. I dunno... it all depends on what our goals are here, at least in the realm of reference material, and in particular material that would be considered original research. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:43, August 27, 2012 (UTC)
Hello Everyone,
As for deletion of my page, feel free to do so. I was under the impression that an encyclopedic website was the same as the dictionary definition of encyclopedia in that it is, "a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject.” [1]
I apparently was naïve in thinking in academic terms that the literal definition of encyclopedia applied to website encyclopedias. I was merely trying to add to the corpus of knowledge and information about the subject of Star Trek. My sincere apologies for assuming an academic definition was relevant when it does not apply to website “encyclopedias” such as Memory Alpha.
Sincerely, Laura J. Sweeney
[1] Merriamwebster.com, “Encyclopedia,” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia, (accessed August 27, 2012).
- From the author's comments, it doesn't seem to be a reference book so much as a dissertation or thesis(she speaks of the "academic community"). 31dot (talk) 20:19, August 27, 2012 (UTC)