Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of 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.  Sandstein  07:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Star Trek

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Apparent POV fork created to promote a viewpoint advanced by a single self-published source. Lagrange613 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: All of the actual information in this article that isn't obviously POV can already be found in other articles on Wikipedia. Even if it didn't qualify for deletion based on the fact that its a personal POV, it should still be deleted because of that.Rorshacma (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as stated, a POV fork, also contains original research and reads like an essay. Sparthorse (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since this article is mainly about the United Federation of Planets, maybe this article should redirect to that one. GVnayR (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Obviously a one-sided POV, not a broad coverage of the subject.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - POV fork, OR, WP:ESSAY, etc. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...oh, geez, I just realised the main source (after reverting a mostly-blanking of SPS material) is an essay on stardestroyer.net. Can this be speedied? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:36, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have nominated it for speedy in a heartbeat if I thought it fit one of the criteria. But it's not a copyvio as far as I can tell, it's not a hoax, and there is non-duplicative content. It's not even really disparaging. It's just unencyclopedic, and there's no speedy criterion for that. Lagrange613 02:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as an essay with POV and sourcing issues, in addition to being flatly untrue based on 'facts' as presented in episodes of ST:DS9, ST:VOY, and ST:ENT among other sources. - Dravecky (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete only POV and one sided coverage of topic. Naveenswiki (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - pov fork and based on unreliable sources. Basically also original research-- Cailil  talk 00:52, 25 October 2011 (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.