Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek planets (A–B)


 * 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. There is a clear consensus here. While notification of affected projects is a courtesy it is not a requirement and these nominations did appear in the project's article alerts. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Star Trek planets (A–B)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Star Trek minutia (aka fancruft). This is a test case for the rest of the alphabetical lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In light of the snowy consensus, I'm nominating the rest of the alphabet:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - All of these lists are unnecessary, WP:PLOT-only, WP:GNG failing laundry lists of pure minutia. There is nothing for which these lists can be used in terms of allowing for more context by linking from another article. The various hundreds of articles can easily handle the burden of an extra sentence explaining each relevant location. TTN (talk)
 * Delete all the new additions, same reasoning. TTN (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 'keep breakout list of notable plot element of series. Exists because of size of parent articles. Each list element needn't be individually notable. List well defined. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the topic of "Star Trek Planets" notable? If not, then that argument can be used for literally any list of fictional minutia. TTN (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * it's a key plot element. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's completely subjective, and it doesn't go against the fact that such a loose reason for splitting a list opens up literally any list. "These weapons are key elements of this RPG." "These special attacks are key elements of this anime." etc. TTN (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete pure fancruft with no context, WP:ALLPLOT. There definitely don't seem to be enough notable planets in Star Trek to merit a large number of lists.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This list is nothing but trivial WP:PLOT information, sourced only to the episodes themselves. A singular, well sourced list or article on the actual notable planets in the franchise (i.e. Vulcan, Qo'Nos, etc.) would make sense. A listing of the hundreds of planets that have been mentioned throughout the franchise's fifty year history, sourced to nothing but the episodes themselves, is nothing but cruft. And while there are sources out there that discuss the fictional planets of the franchise, they are, again, pretty much limited to the handful of actually notable examples, not the countless number contained in these lists that had no bearing on the plot of even a single episode and were mentioned off hand. Rorshacma (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, as my recommendation was posted before the remainder of the lists were added, I do fully support deleting all of them. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - not needed. This kind of list is more suited for a Star Trek-focused wiki than Wikipedia. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 22:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as these as purely all-plot stuff, not notable at all.--WikiAviator (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there a single planet that is blue linked that has its own article for Star Trek and not a real location? Bajor links to Bajoran, and the other links I clicked to are just real life locations.  Are the other lists like this also?  If there is enough legitimate blue links from all of them combined, then merge them together.   D r e a m Focus  15:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Currently, no. The closest we have is the link to "Earth" linking to the Star Trek segment of the Earth in science fiction article, and Vulcan, as the name of the planet and native species are the same, so the target article discusses both.  The remaining blue links are either to the real-life locations, or to the species that inhabits them (i.e. Qo'Nos linking to Klingon). Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete all All of these should've been nominated at once, since its the same situation in all of them. Not a single article exist for any planet, only for the notable species, then delete them all.   D r e a m Focus  16:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All of them are now nominated. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sadly these are all about plot stuff so there is no convincing reason to keep these pages. All of the notable content almost certainly exists already on other Star Trek articles. WP:ALLPLOT. Ceosad (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. On a related note, see this. ミラP 23:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment And there go the planets!! Govvy (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above, there is nothing new and notable with this article  Alex-h (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and object to any continuation or close to this attempt per not notifying the Star Trek and Science Fiction Wikiprojects for response and per not notifying the list's creator outside of the A-B article. Keep per well sourced and educational list and per WP:IGNOREALLRULES as this list is an exceptional resource for the encyclopedia and keeping it maintains the encyclopedia's Star Trek collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've notified the wikiprojects and ask for a relisting for responses, if any. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like pointless wikilawyering. There is no need to notify projects, and notifying creators is a curtesy. How many are even still active? TTN (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A need to notify the Star Trek wikiproject about a removal discussion of six major articles seems obvious and important for the credibility of finalizing such a mass removal. Notifying projects is the good faith and fair way to go with something like this. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a nicety, but not a necessity. That's especially true given that it looks to be a fairly inactive project, and it can be assumed anyone truly active in the project would have these pages on their radar given the relatively low number of articles on the topic compared to mass Wikiprojects. It seems like you're trying to enforce pointless bureaucracy due to your own personal interest in the topic. TTN (talk) 15:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I like the topic, and I also don't like the fact that this massive collection of material on the subject is being quickly jettisoned without alerting others who may like the topic. The comments about me obscure the actual target - the collection of Star Trek planets material which is likely the best such collection on the internet and which, by the way, seems quite encyclopedia worthy. Hopefully the closer will consider the Ignore the Rules direction to maintain the encyclopedia which, in a real way, asks us to maintain specific and unique articles in a topic collection. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I only found out about it by seeing the WikiProject notification; I watch the project talk page, but not these lists. It is highly desirable to notify projects. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, as above. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as mostly not notable, but handle incoming redirects & links with care rather than simply deleting them all. Some could usefully be redirected to episode articles instead, in cases where a location made a worthwhile connection between multiple episodes. As TTN stated above, "The various hundreds of articles can easily handle the burden of an extra sentence explaining each relevant location" but, unless done by an admin, that needs to be done before deletion (or by temporarily pasting a copy into WikiProject space). Note: I have just removed links to these sub-lists from Template:Star Trek so that we can see what intentional incoming links remain. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * delete Too many lists, etc. Wanderer0 (talk) 19:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all as mostly not notable. Rollidan (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2019 (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.