Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy and religion 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 redirect to Star Trek. Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Philosophy and religion in Star Trek

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

two sentences do not an article make. needs to be merged somewhere or returned to draft state to incubate, at best Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Restore 's redirect from August pending development of article content. The subject is notable (e.g. philosophy & religion hits on Google yield published third-party commentary in droves) but current content isn't there yet. The redirect seems apt for now and we'll get the article done before the WP:DEADLINE. --EEMIV (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect per EEMIV. I agree completely that the subject has potential and sources, but has been sitting here undeveloped for just over a year now.  Rather than having a largely empty article languishing here, a redirect to the main Star Trek article would be better, and then when someone actually develops the article fully, it can be reverted back to an independent article.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment An unpublished edition could also be useful. I was inspired to write this from Philosophy and religion in Star Wars but that seems to be mostly extinct. It's also arguable that Star Trek puts a lot of emphasis on philosophy and even religion, so it's something notable. What EEMIV wrote is also agreeable.--NadirAli نادر علی


 * 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.