This article was nominated for deletion on 29 September 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Star Trek Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I strongly object against the deletion of this article as proposed by the Widefox. I do not feel offended, So please do not feel offended either.

I am trying to understand the reasons for the deletion proposal. It is very hard, indeed, as I can hardly see reasosn for calling my article WP:TNT.

First I will quote User:Widefox, the statement standing in the beginning of his own talk page: "Talk to me..." If Widefox requires that from other users, I would require a similar approach from Widefox. So - why is the discussion page to The Klingon Way still empty?

It is very easy to mark an article with several tags, justified or not. Try instead to explain what do you understand behind each of the tags as applying to my article? The best would be by showing at least one example for each tag within the text (the more examples you show, the better justified your opinion). I am eager to know your opinion and I declare being willy to work on them.

In the mean time I have modified the structure of the sentence containing the words "Federation Standard", which is according to me the only instance that might justify calling my description "written from in-universe perspective". There are numerous references to the external world, like 1) refernces to the ST series episodes and ST movies, and 2) references to pages, book sections etc. of the book described - which are both facts here, not within the ST-universe - to counter you accusation. The quatation from the book back cover, which is somehow kept in the "in-universe" style, was clearly marked as a quotation from the beginning. If you can still see any other error of this type, please let me know, I shall with pleasure face the task and try to correct me error / improve the article.

I cannot cite any external sources as no published reviews of the book are known to me (apart from the quotation on the back cover). Yet I have tried to present as objective a description as possible. The reference are given directly to the book described (by page number etc.). If you know of any external reviews, please let me know.

I have removed two words which might justify calling the article a "personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts" - namely: "Unfortunately" and "good". Apart frome these I do not see other instances of the error mentiones, if you can spot one, let me know.

I am trying to digest and understand the criteria contained in the "notability guideline for books" - in order to find how i have broken them, yet I was unable to find any. Please, enlighten me.

I was trying to understand the Wikipedia deletion policies, different types of deletion procedures, ways of dealing with them etc. - but they are so numerous, so complicated as a whole (understanding them would require too much time spent on reading and passing from one link to another), so I have decided I will simply remove the deprod proposal, and wait what will happen. noychoH (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest next time using WP:AFC rather than risk deletion by creating articles with no sources - per WP:GNG. Also, better to discuss deletion at the AfD. Widefox; talk 23:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a very good start of a page. It needs citations, but not deletion. I've been told by other editors about how many good pages are deleted here on a daily basis, and the very few times I look into the deletion pages it's very sad to see the good pages that are being discarded. This one should have the attention of the Star Trek project, and thank you, NoychoH, for taking the time and attention to create it. Nice work. Randy Kryn 16:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it is saved!

I was convinced that the article would be deleted, after the fierce and merciless attacks of the main opponent, reallly in a Klingonlike way. I could only say: QI'tomerDaq Heghpu' Hoch! and Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam! so I even stopped following the discussion. Now I can find that the article is preserved! As the one who started this article and tried to do my best to meet the standards, I can only add that of course, it was not perfect, and probably still isn't, like anything else in Wikipedia, yet I am glad it has been preserved, because it is really an important book. Great thanks to all those who voted for the article. noychoH (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]