Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto destruct (Star Trek)


 * 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 Delete. All articles must demonstrate notability through independent sources. Just because we can't transwiki to Memory Alpha doesn't mean that we should host content that belongs over there. Eluchil404 01:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Auto destruct (Star Trek)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An in-universe, mostly uncited set of plot summaries that does not attempt to explain, if any, real-world notability. More appropriate for Memory Alpha. EEMeltonIV 17:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete - trekcruft. Artw 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Memory Alpha. Wl219 18:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Transwiki Completely in-universe information with no real world applicability/notability Corpx 18:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, but Memory Alpha has an incompatible license with Wikipedia, so it's not an option for TW. Or has that changed? FrozenPurpleCube 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are GDFL compatible ones - Star Trek Expanded Universe, Memory Beta Corpx 20:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Memory Alpha already has a page on this subject that's pretty similar to the Wikipedia one; (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Auto_destruct) there wouldn't really be much to be gained from a transwiki, IMO. DaveJB 12:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/Transwiki to one of the Wikia wikis mentioned by Corpx. --Pixelface 08:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Notable in the Trek Series. If you remove this article you might as well remove all articles to do with fictional aspects of TV. Plus the article has been on Wiki for a fair while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.50.16 (talk) 04:18, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Longevity is not a compelling reason to keep something; there have been several Star Wars- and Star Trek-related AFDs and prods in the last few months of in-universe articles about non-notable bits of trivia. Although auto-destruct may be "notable in the Trek series," inclusion in Wikipedia requires that it be notable in the real world. --EEMeltonIV 12:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Keep If every thing in Wikipedia must be "notable in the real world" then why are there individual enties for fictional cartoon/TV characters on Wiki? if your answer is because they relate to an actors work; then this article relates to a creative work from a TV/film writer (Gene Roddenberry/Rick Berman). Therefore notable.


 * KEEP Fits notability being part of the Star Trek TV/Film Legacy. Is sourced and well written without use of "Trek Babble" Deletion would be very harsh on an article like this that has been on Wikipedia for this length of time and of this word count. If not delete then merge into another USS Enterprise article? --Frequency24 05.25, 27 August 2007 GMT
 * Comment - An article about an aspect of Star Trek does not inherit notability simply by "being part of the Star Trek TV/film legacy"; the subject must be notable in and of itself. Being around for a while and its word count are irrelevant; several long and old Star Wars- and Star Trek-related articles have been deleted in the last few months because, more importantly, they are in-universe write-ups about non-notable aspects of the series. --EEMeltonIV 12:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment In your OPINION perhaps. This deletion seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Frequency24 19:23, 27 August 2007 GMT
 * Comment - Only that I don't like in-universe write-ups about non-notable aspects of the series. I'm part of both the SW and ST wikiprojects, and the kneejerk reaction that some editors have against including material written about fiction is rooted in the overload of trivia sitting around. Can you or anyone provide a third-party reliable source that explains the real-world significance of the auto-destruct system? Considering, as you point, that that this article is very old yet no one's cited a source, I doubt there are any out there; this article should be deleted. --EEMeltonIV 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment & KEEP - If your talking about the real world significance of auto-destruct. then this could be related to Industrial Light & Magic's work on the star trek movies in terms of special effects and the evolution thereof. that alone makes it notable in the "Real World" unless you feel that Tom & Jerry, Jack Bauer or The Terminator dont deserve "real world" wiki entries either? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.83.226 (talk) 18:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - ILM's development of the effect sounds like a worthwhile addition to either the movies' or the ships' articles. --EEMeltonIV 00:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The function is too important to lose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaice (talk • contribs) 02:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 18:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - weak arguement from the above and what do you mean by "secondary sources" exactly? have you actually been reading the discussion? there are plenty of sources out there for ILM and their contribution to the star trek universe. Read the discussion again. --Frequency24 00:22, 01 September 2007 GMT


 * Delete. Memory alpha can host this topic, but it does not seem to have any reliable third-party coverage. Cool Hand Luke 22:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Disregard above comment circumstantial and opinionated comment. another example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. plus it's already been established that the article cannot be trans in previous comments. Read the discussion in full. --Frequency24 00:27, 01 September 2007 GMT


 * Keep/Merge suits WP:N easily by being part of the ILM effects portfolio for Star Trek. perhaps merge into an ILM article? or a USS Enterprise artice as many exist. just a case of extra effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.71.11 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2007 (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.