Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridge (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. PeaceNT 12:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge (Star Trek)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopedic, doesn't require its own article. Could possibly be rolled into a Star Trek or Starship main article. Problems with WP:V Rackabello 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no real-world impact. --Eyrian 17:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Trekcruft. Artw 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless expanded per WP:FICT. I believe, as the main sets for Trek series, these are notable and have received sufficient real-world coverage, but the article at hand does not touch on this. --Dhartung | Talk 19:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with User:Artw: delete, with option to transwiki to a trek-wiki -- Simon Cursitor 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR and lack of real world sources Corpx 03:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the nominator. The members of Trek-wiki can write their own.  Burntsauce 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Memory Alpha (the Star Trek wiki) already has a detailed article on this, so there's no need to transwiki. I believe that reliable secondary sources exist: for example, here's the set designer discussing the design of the bridge on the BBC's (now-defunct) Cult website.  I vaguely recall hearing something about the U.S. Navy studying the layout of the Enterprise bridge and copying it for a monitoring station or something, but I can't find sources for that; perhaps more dedicated Trekkies will know what I'm talking about and find sources.  If those sources can be found, the article should probably be kept; if not, deletion would be no great loss. If the article is deleted and its creators subsequently find sources, recreation shouldn't be a problem. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not cite any sources. --Coppertwig 17:48, 25 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.