Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rules of Acquisition (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. I suggest a merge discussion as a way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rules of Acquisition

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it is possible to cite these rules (by pointing to the episodes they appear), they are not notable. They are one of dozens of minor recurring elements in the greater Star Trek fiction, but that doesn't justify an article on them. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of the two previous deletion nominations, however my argument still stands. You can cite episodes and lines in books to prove that something exists, but that doesn't mean that it's notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a whole book of these rules ([1]), so there is at least one source outside the episodes themselves. There are plenty of other sources discussing them, e.g. [2], [3], and several more of Google News. Whether or not this should have a standalone article or be merged to Ferengi is surely the only question here. --Michig (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I thought about that before I listed it, but ultimately I don't see what could be added from this article that isn't already in Ferengi. Pretty much everything that's not the actual list itself is well covered in Ferengi#Economics_and_trade and Ferengi#Culture, so it comes down to "does this list, most of which we can cite as existing, have notability that would warrant an article". Coverage usually implies notability, but it's not a given, and I believe that there isn't notability to justify this specific article. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Ferengi – The article only covers things from an in-universe perspective; no real world notability is asserted. Looking through first few pages of the book linked above, it also appears to be written from an in-universe perspective - it's even credited to a character from DS9 "as told to" the actual author. (Also, the book appears to consist simply of one aphorism per page without any further analysis about why they're "good" advice. Maybe that comes later, but I have no intention of being the one to read the whole way through it. This also may mean that the list part of the article is a copyright violation and needs to come out even if the thing is kept.) The keep arguments from the old AfDs don't seem very convincing to me. They appear to generally boil down to "Star Trek is notable, so this is notable." Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge: delete the list of rules and merge the intro and background sections to Ferengi. The rules may merit a section in that article, as an important part of Ferengi culture, but there's a lack of reliable independent and in-depth sources to establish notability. Episodes don't count, nor does an official tie-in book. The rules are mentioned in other publications, but unless someone has proof of in-depth third-party analysis, they're not notable. Listing the actual rules is unnecessary and I'm surprised it's not considered a breach of copyright. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree with the previous comment about the weakness of earlier AfDs: most of the arguments there would be laughed at or get you hit by a fish today. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - this is a copyright violation (we don't allow full reprinting of lists made by creative efforts.) We can quote a few select ones, to demonstrate how they read (whether this remains or is merged), but we can't have the full list. --MASEM (t) 03:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think a merger into Ferengi would be the order of the day. Miyagawa (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a 2008 book, ISBN 978-0671529369 and a 1999 book, ISBN-13: 978-1582364612 covering this topic as well as outside mention such as this ZDNet article. Sorry, notable. It is a silly article but that's no reason to delete. Wikipedia has plenty of silly articles. TMLutas (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the books given are primary sources, reiterating what is in the show. Now, there could be more details on how the Rules were considered by the writers, but I'm not getting the feeling there's much outside the actual rules and show appearances in those two books. On that assumption, we can't use these for sourcing notability. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a number of mentions across the Internet in Star Trek related wikis and some news articles that use the things as launching points in analysis. I'd actually think you'd need to demonstrate that the books in question are primary and not secondary. Just asserting that they are unsuitable seems a bit weak. TMLutas (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DS9 is my favorite Star Trek show, and the Ferengi culture is my favorite element of it. While watching, I tried to keep a log of the Rules of Acquisition, without being able to get even half of them. And now, 14 years after the last original broadcast, I can still find the Rules on Wiki! What a delight! Moving some of these facts to the general Ferengi article WITHOUT THE LIST OF RULES just doesn't cut it. Someone has taken their time and good talent to write this comprehensive article. Why is there a movement to delete it? This opinion has been expressed that the Rules are "not notable,. . . and just one of dozens of minor recurring elements in the greater Star Trek fiction, but that doesn't justify an article on them." It is precisely this attention to a culture’s makeup that makes DS9 satisfying and intriguing. These details give a richer texture to the series. The ITEMIZED Rules explain the values and outlook of not just Quark, but of the Ferengi people. This article is well written, already in place, and doesn’t take much space. As is well said in the article, 2 books have been written that itemize the Rules. That fact in itself undermines the assertion that an article is not justified on the Rules. Further, just how do we get hold of these books? After great time, research, and energy. Do we wait for one to come up on Amazon? It was a delight to find this article on Wiki, but I am not such a fanatic that I would buy 2 books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WannaBFerengi (talk • contribs) 05:05, 30 September 2013‎ (UTC) — WannaBFerengi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - for the reason stated above by TMLutas and I'll add a further suggestion along those lines: Delete the Deletionists. I am so sick of this excessive rule thumping. What is wrong with these people? Get a life!--Achim (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ferengi. It's clearly a documentable part of the fictional species and some details can be given, and the term remains searchable, so merging makes the most sense. --MASEM (t) 03:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The republication of the full or major portions of the Rules is a copyright violation, as outlined at WP:NFC#Unacceptable use#Text#4. One or two rules can be quoted to demonstrated what the list is, but because of the copyvio, I've stripped the list. Please note - this should have no direct impact on this AFD, but be aware that I have had to remove this text mid-AFD. --MASEM (t) 03:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What Star Trek episode published the full set of rules? What is the work that is being infringed? TMLutas (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of Trek fictional as a whole, in addition to the two books you identified above. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the section of the article listing the rules has now been blanked with the copyright template and the article is listed at the copyright problems board. If the article is retained, a determination on that material will have to be made separately. I note that copyright issues were raised at the talk page of that article several times, including a small RFC in 2008 that concluded that listing about 5 of the rules would be appropriate. More transformative use (as in by adding commentary) would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The rules are collected in a published book. While that book is a primary source, the professionally published reviews it has attracted are not. (Yes, notability isn't inherited, but it's inconceivable that the reviews would not give significant coverage to the rules themselves, since they're the only thing of substance in the book.) —Psychonaut (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide citations for this professional reviews for these books; you can't just wave your hand and say they exist. Further, that doesn't necessarily provide coverage of the fiction of the Rules, just the books' authors; they might, but without any pointers to read them, we can't tell. --15:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  - I recall reading reviews in newspapers when the book came out. Ten seconds of web searching brought up a review in the Chicago Tribune [4] for example. (Paywalled, of course, but you get an abstract and word count. Do you think the reviewer could have written 752 words about a book which contains nothing but the rules, without discussing the rules themselves?) If I get time I'll do a proper newspaper search at the library. However, please note that apart from book reviews there's also some scholarly articles which discuss the rules. One which discusses them in detail is Jacob Held's "'The Rules of Acquisition can't help you now': What can the Ferengi teach us about business ethics?" which appears in Star Trek and Philosophy (J. T. Eberl and K. S. Decker, eds.), Vol. 35 in the series Popular Culture and Philosophy (G. A. Reisch, series ed.). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's the full text about this: [5] (I searched on the title of the review). In which I'm reading that this is pretty much a book summary, not a review so much, and basically are details that do support the Rules, but in that sense, this still makes much better sense to talk about the Rules in context of the Ferengi themselves and their development as the book hints to, in that the Rules are part of making the Ferengi (specifically "Behr, who was born and raised in the Bronx and counts the TV series "Bret Maverick" and "Fame" among his pre-"Trek" writing credits, explains that the rules were hatched when it was decided the once-nefarious Ferengi required a cultural point of view, a philosophy by which they were guided."). --MASEM (t) 16:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources given above are sufficient. That the content of a review primarily summarizes the book does not make it less of a review--we judge by the fact it is covered substantially by a RS, not by what the review says. DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 6 October 2013 (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.