Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Jackson


 * 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 of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   19:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alex Jackson
Inventor of what appears to be non-existant fancruft Star Trek series. Charlesknight 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Charlesknight has not seen the proposal - I have and it will be a series if paramount decide to continue with the franchise; It is very promising fans keep your eye out for news on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.122.221 (talk • contribs)


 * Ah well then you think it should be deleted, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --Charlesknight 21:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Article on supposed Star Trek: Aniquity series did not escape deletion (speedy too, I believe), neither should this. -- Matticus78 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fire all phasers and photon torpedoes, and Delete as crystal-ball at best, fancruft at worst. (What is "Aniquity"? It's not even a word.) Fan1967 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete It is a proposal series! read what is written - its not that hard - its not stated as an actual running series MarcusHenry 22:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * COMMENT - You might not be aware but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What you seem to saying is that someone has submitted a proposal (Solicited? Unsolicited?) to paramount and that's about it. That's actually a case for the article to be deleted not kept. Please explain further if I have misunderstood any element of this. --Charlesknight 21:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not have articles on things which might happen, which could happen, or which are proposed to happen. Fan1967 21:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * More info could be found out and added if you let it instead of deleting it!!! as for "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" perhaps Wikipedia is not a place for you to use non words - fancruft have you ever thoughy like I do that aniquity may not be from a human language as it is star trek. - It is fact and should be kept *Do Not Delete* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.247.230.200 (talk • contribs)


 * Okay, a time-out is required here before the insults really start flying. Regardless of this show's real or unreal status, something that hasn't been released yet, or even announced in any official capacity whatsoever, does not belong on Wikipedia. This is not victimization, this is not a comment on personal worthiness, this is official policy. --Matticus78 21:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and probable vanity, unsourced & unverafiable.--Nick Y. 21:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment probably could go speedy delete as the author has claimed copywrite on the material and wikipedia is violating his copywrite by reproducing it without permission.--Nick Y. 21:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Heard about this you may not thats your problem KEEP.--Marcushenry 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any verification from reliable sources on any of this? Wikipedia has rules, and we cannot keep articles just because you say something is true. Fan1967 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I think you might be misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. It's not a question of "heard about this" it's a question of verification. Can you offer any sources to provide such verification? --Charlesknight 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - for one thing, please see WP:OWN. It is inappropriate to post a copyright notice on things you write for Wikipedia.  Under the proposed guideline WP:MEME, if a person is only notable because of their meme, they should be mentioned in its article.  In other words, if this show that he created isn't worthy of an article, neither is its creator, but if it does deserve an article, you can mention him there.  BigDT 21:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As most of the above - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball being the main one that strikes me. Wolfsbane Kane 22:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nick Y; WP:NOT a crystal ball, also not verifiable and not notable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not just a delete, but a speedy delete, since it's an article about a real person or group of people that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7). --Calton | Talk 00:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Until such time as the series is made and shown on television or achieves coverage from reliable sources, it is unverifiable. That means that its creator is also not verifiable nor notable enough to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 03:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. Choose from any of the excellent reasons cited above. -- GWO
 * Delete. Faster the better. All the reasons well stated already. --Richhoncho 12:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT a dilithium crystal ball. NawlinWiki 15:26, 27 June 2006 (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.