Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kzinti Hegemony


 * 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 Merge to Star Fleet Universe. --Haemo 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kzinti Hegemony

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This in universe plot summary has no primary or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the notability outside the role playing game from which this fictional race/empire is derived. Gavin Collins 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 08:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. AndalusianNaugahyde 17:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note AndalusianNaugahyde has been blocked indefinitely as a disruptive sockpuppet. Edward321 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge an appropriately reduced amount to Star Fleet Universe -- there really should be a powers of the Star Fleet Universe type article, but at the moment I don't think there is. Pinball22 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete too likely to be confused with the actually notable Kzinti Patriarchy (Empire) 132.205.99.122 20:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Then what prevents us from putting a line that reads "for the Kzinti Patriarchy, see..." at the top? --130.232.106.73 20:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Response That was already on the page and unrelated to the reason this article is up for deletion. Iarann 18:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * delete - hard to see how a fictional race not represented in the TV series can be demonstrated to be notable. I'm happy to be proved wrong, though. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-canon. Possibly copy over to an ST-dedicated wiki (whichever of the many is the right one) -- Simon Cursitor 08:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. To those voting based on their lack of appearance in the show/non-canonness in Star Trek, please note that this is about the Star Fleet Universe, not the regular Star Trek universe. Pinball22 13:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT and WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge per Pinball22. I also think that the Star Fleet Universe pages should be treated as a group since they're presented as part of a series.  The universe is shared by more than one game publisher, there ought to be some reliable sources out there. Kmusser 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge The information, while appropriate to the notable topics related to Star Fleet Universe, would be better served as a merged article along with the other in universe government pages. It would have been more appropriate to apply a Merge Multiple articles template to the various pages (see WP:MERGE) rather then suggest deletion, which gives little time to create such a page.  Please note that Gavin Collins has applied this template to the other articles that would be good candidates for merging with this article and those making their opinion noted here should check out those pages as well. Iarann 17:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Gavin Collins has made a comment on another related page up for deletion that merging is not a good option. I am posting this response because all of these articles are up for deletion for the same reason and are related. Typically when an article is merged, extraneous information is removed and the article is slimmed down and properly cited.  When sources are cited, and an article is not considered notable enough by itself, I don't understand why you would oppose merging.  Especially when most of these articles you have already tried to delete for the exact same reasons survived (see  for the Klingon Empire AfD and  for the Romulan Star Empire AfD).  I also strongly recommend you take a look at the Nomination section of the Guide to deletion which mentions you should both give thought to merging and "You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth."  The article does have references at the bottom of the page, and therefore with cleaning could easily be merged.  At the least, if we merged all of these race/government articles into two articles based on the Alliance and Coalition headings they seem to fall under, it would help keep things relevant and notable both to the appropriate subject and Wikipedia guidelines.  A lack of inline sources is not enough for deletion, as you well know or you would have used that argument in your original nomination.  To go back to your original argument for deletion, if there is no notability outside of the game guide, I do not understand why an article for the game guide itself, which is quite notable, cannot include information related to the governments involved in the game.  I noticed there is a history of this (see  for an RFC for Gavin Collins) which leads me to some concern to your motives.  While I understand a desire to clean up Wikipedia, AfD is not the only solution, nor should it be rushed to.  Instead, things like merging and working to clean up articles and cite sources should be emphasized first. Iarann 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge per Pinball22, Iarann. Edward321 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 00:51, 12 November 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.