Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional foods and beverages in 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 as a collection of non-notable, (generally) unsourced entries with no real-world significance whatsoever. There is nothing worth keeping or merging, as that would simply add Trekcruft to other articles. -- Mike (Kicking222) 06:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is a large collection of in universe information for which no real world context could ever be established. There are no sources to meet the reliable secondary source requirement set forth in WP:FICT. Therefore notability cannot be established. Additionally, this is just plot information (WP:NOT#PLOT). Pilotbob 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Pilotbob 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and puke. These kinds of lists make me want to boke. For the sake of actually bothering to present an argumet, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of yadda yadda yadda... No more bongos 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to somewhere else in the many Star Trek articles. Yes, it's fun, and most of us have heard of "plomik soup" (D.C. Fontana's in-joke about something that would sound like "vomit"), but as Pilotbob says, these are plot devices, concepts of something "alien".  I like bongos' word "boke"-- never heard of it before now. Mandsford 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this list is the result of a previous AFD of several articles. I'm a bit reluctant to undo the good faith work of those editors. Neutral on the AFD at the moment, though. Otto4711 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with hesitation - as the article states that there is a Star Trek Cookbook, perhaps some of these items can be sourced from there as well as one of those Star Trek Encyclopedia things I have seen. I personally don't have one so I can't help.  If these items are not sourced however, the article seems to fail from WP:Not as much of the information would have to come from direct observance of the television series if these books do not cite these foodstuffs.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Dammit Jim, Wikipedia's not a trivia repository. Clarityfiend 18:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Plot, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:OR and I'm sure many others. There is already a Star Trek Wiki for this information. Ridernyc 21:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the previous AfD that previous AFD that Otto4711 mentioned. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * as I've said before mergeing unencyclopedic entries into one article just makes one giant unencyclopedic article. Ridernyc 03:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is lots of Star Trek stuff that is notable outside the Star Trek universe. This is not one of them. --Blanchardb 00:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fancruft at its worst. • 97198  talk  09:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I sourced a bit from the only source I know of that's not an episode (I don't own it, my imaginary Klingon friend does). That done, I don't think any of this should really be in Wikipedia. We're not Memory Alpha or Beta, and if they want to source it there, that's great, but if it's not covered in considerable depth in some source not written by Star Trek producers, then writing that encyclopedia into Wikipedia and sourcing it all from one or two sources focuses a lot of attention on material that really isn't notable enough to include in this encyclopedia.--chaser - t 22:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, agree with nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:42, 9 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.