Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Site (Stargate)


 * 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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Alpha Site (Stargate)
This location is not notable, the article is original research, no sources, would not meet notability criteria if location existed in the real world--Paul E. Ester 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I sense a lot of passion for this article, while I believe the notability is still not apparent to those not familiar with the show, I will concede that the article has been improved with some sources and that this afd is not likely to be successful. If someone would like to do the house cleaning, I withdraw this nomination. Thanks for your feedback and improvements. --Paul E. Ester 01:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What type of cleaning are you refering to? Tobyk777 02:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Archive the afd and remove the notice from the page. thanks,--Paul E. Ester 03:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin so i'm not permittedto do that, I thought you meant house work improving the article. Tobyk777 03:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Permanent and semi-permanent sustained off-world outposts are increasingly becoming key plot devices in the show. If this article is deleted, there is no primary location to place references for the additional off world outposts ("Gamma Site") which have been mentioned more than once.  Outside of the two stories that included events on the alpha site, there have been key plot elements including the alpha and gamma sites as well.  If the data still does not warrant a standalone article, merge it with some other startgate article so that mentionings of the alpha site can be referenced elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DocRadium (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. I know these endless articles about a TV show may seem pointless, but it's a notable piece of a notable show, like Sunnydale, Starfleet Academy or Hogwarts. The sources are the episodes themselves. (If we actually had a permanent base on another planet, I'm sure it would be considered notable.) Fan-1967 22:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources should be other people already writing about the episodes, in order to avoid original research. Readers should not have to watch the episodes and themselves perform analyses and reach conclusions in order to verify articles. Uncle G 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Going by the information in the article, this location is not the equivalent of Sunnydale, Starfleet Academy or Hogwarts. The article states that Alpha Site refers to emergency evacuation locations. Unless proof can be given that this location is of the same primary and central importance to this fictional series as Sunnydale, Starfleet Academy and Hogwarts are to their respective fictions, then delete. (and if we had a permanent base on another planet, that would be notable unless perhaps if we were engaged in an interstellar war involving multiple alien races with advanced technology and our sense of wonder about having an emergency base on another planet had been somewhat dulled by the grim yet routine trials of space war.) Bwithh 23:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to agree with Bwithh.  This location, from what I can gather, is of very little importance and consequence in the show, as opposed to Hogwarts, for example, which is where the entire Harry Potter plot takes place.  Additionally, the article needs reliable sources.  Srose  (talk)  23:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of you are completely wrong and I doubt that either of you have ever seen the show. The Alpha site appears in more than 25 episodes, and is a huge part of many key episodes including season finalies.  The article is sourced, is not original research, and if it were a real place would certainly be notable enough for inclusion.  If you don't know how important something is, don't vote to delete it if you think it seems unimportant.  This is very important.  Tobyk777 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article now has two references. Uncle G 13:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It now has six, all of which are independent of the show and its creators, and several of which are more than mere directory entries for a planet in a fictional universe. Keep. Uncle G 14:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The show is a valid primary source. Primary sources are not ideal, but they are allowed. The lack of any other sources (which apparently have now been added anyway) is something that needs to be improved, but we don't delete articles simply for needing improvement. --Tango 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Tango. Perhaps it should be spotlighted within the Stargate WP, but it shouldn't be deleted without an attempt at improvment (which has already began apparently). No Way Back 21:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge to a list of minor SG locations. -- Ned Scott 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a minor location. It's a major one.  A list of minor ones exists here.  Tobyk777 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per Ned Scott. Current version gives multiple sources, is expanded, and does a decent job of explaining why it is important. JoshuaZ 22:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strong keep Very important, is sourced, no OR. The nominator and people who voted delete don't know what they're talking about.  this is very important.  Tobyk777 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONG Keep this is a VERY important part of the show.  ANy attempt to say otherwise is either misinformed of just plain wrong.  American Patriot 1776 01:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said. Thank you.  An extremely important part of the show with alot of misinformed people trying to delete it.  Tobyk777 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't get mad at people for nominating an article for deletion. Also, being important to a show doesn't make it notable. Granted I went for a keep in my comments, I still think it's important to not bit the head off the guy who nominated this article for deletion. It's all apart of the process. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Not mad, just informing :). I'm sure the AFD was made in good faith. American Patriot 1776 18:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Polite keep. Metamagician3000 07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not original research, and definitely not cruft.--Zxcvbnm 13:44, 1 August 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.