Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/References to Star Trek in South Park


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Kusma (討論) 02:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

References to Star Trek in South Park

 * Delete per WP:NOT and unencyclopedic. Jersey Devil 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Stifle (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- blue 520  05:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per precident set in Votes_for_deletion/References_to_Star_Trek_in_The_Simpsons EnsRedShirt 06:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this indiscriminate and unencylopedic collection of information and then delete References to Star Trek in The Simpsons. MLA 09:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and renominate References to Star Trek in The Simpsons for deletion. --Optichan 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and thank all the good people who voted to keep References to Star Trek in The Simpsons -Acjelen 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per EnsRedShirt. This article is no better than Thalian chocolate mousse. --69.158.73.9 22:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this is the above user's second edit. --Jersey Devil 03:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So I forgot to log in. Sue me. (69.158.73.9)--LuciferBlack 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Set phasers on delete. A bad unencylopedic article is a bad unencylopedic article, regardless of the presence of other bad unencylopedic articles. --Calton | Talk 04:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per simpsons precedent. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic Westfall 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep valid subarticle of References to Star Trek. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and the Simpsons analogue too. Sandstein 19:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per EnsRedShirt - the arguments for keeping precedent are valid and apply here as well. Crito2161 18:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash;LrdChaos 20:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and quit saying unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a clone of Britannica.--God Ω War 06:22, 17 April 2006 (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.