Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. "Keep - this has been nominated for deletion before" and the numerous variations on it are not valid arguments to retain the article. Only Edward321 makes any attempt to actually give a valid reason to retain the article. With all irrelevant contribution discounted, the consensus is to delete. Article fails WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and duplicates much of the content at Romulan. Neıl ☎  13:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Romulan Star Empire (Star Fleet Universe)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

AfDs for this article:  The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Fleet game articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Also important to know, there is already an article about Romulans and their empire, this is about the Star Fleet Universe version of it, and has much less notability than the originals. Judgesurreal777 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Instead of nominating these pages individually, you should nominate all Star Fleet Universe articles as a bundled nomination. I was planning on doing it tonight, but I was busy with class. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but lately, bundled nominations attract massive amounts of people who don't understand policy and create so much chaos that the closers are basically unable to delete them. Judgesurreal777 21:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Star Fleet Universe is a relatively unknown subject, so I doubt it'll attract all that much attention. You should do it anyway, just to have one location where discussion can take place. Wait, are you saying that bundled nominations are never successful? I had one recently that worked just fine... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note that this is the second nomination; the last one was closed on 12 October, 2007 as keep. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So? It still violates policies such as verification and WP:FICTION, and has not improved since it was last nominated. Judgesurreal777 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Most nominations link to the previous one(s), and it's customary to wait a certain amount of time before renominating articles. It's a form of wiki etiquette. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I used Twinkle to set this up, and the nomination was all garbled for some reason, has to reconstruct by hand. Do you know how, cause I don't. :) Judgesurreal777 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Judgesurreal777 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The proposition seems to be to sneak in a repeat nomination quickly again because this will not be noticed. Sorry but I have noticed this incivility.  The Star Fleet universe is quite well known in my circle and should be properly considered as a whole rather than being subjected to these multiple assaults.  Colonel Warden 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I will speedily withdraw if if you can produce ANY REFERENCES, if you can't, then my second nomination was for very good reason. It is now uncivil to nominate bad articles that were retained for no reason, or a bunch of keep votes were made without regard to policy? I think not. Judgesurreal777 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article contains several references already. But if you'd like another, there's issue #54 of The Space Gamer which contains further coverage of the Romulans in Star Fleet Battles.  Q.E.D.  Colonel Warden 01:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The kinds of references I mean are commentary by the creators of the game about the Romulans in the series, or anything explaining how this was created and developed, and also reaction to the Romulans in the Starfleet universe from game magazines. Post some of that stuff here, if it exists, and we can add it to the article and withdraw the nomination. Judgesurreal777 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Secret account 02:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Per Colonel Warden. "Needs improvement" does not equal "needs deletion". Rray (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Merge and Delete - It looks like a vast amount of this article is already found at Romulan. This article appears to be a redundancy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such action. An article can be merged or deleted, not both.  Pick one.  Uncle G (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Delete per LonelyBeacon - not notable independent of Romulans and not enough out-of-universe information to justify its own article. - Chardish (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such action. An article can be merged or deleted, not both.  Pick one.  Uncle G (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete the page is a mix of stuff, but is mostly gameguide. As it stands, there is not one source for real-world notability on the page. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or move to another wiki (if this is Star Trek, move it to the Star Trek Wiki). -- Astroview 120  mm  05:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously needs help, but that's not a reason for deletion. Kmusser (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is already a redirect for "Klingon Empire" to Klingon. A merge and redirect or merge and delete would parallel what precedent has set. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no substantive difference between this nom and the one given in October. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 16:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the main difference is yet another month, like yet many other before it, of no improvement for this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that there's a time limit for improvement? I could agree with that (almost) if the previous nom had been a "No consensus" or "cleanup", but it was a straight "Keep" for what is essentially the same deletion rationale.  -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 18:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of effort is not a criteria for deletion, I am saying it is a sign that there is no notability, because without notability there is nothing to add to this in-universe plot repetition article. 19:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)


 * Merge to Romulan Star Empire. Or at least move... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an independant setting from the Star Trek series, so merging to that is not appropriate.  It it is part of the Star Fleet Battles setting, which is covered in both board and roleplaying games.  Edward321 (talk) 04:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But if it is already covered there, why wouldn't we keep this? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep To quote: "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." One month, during the holidays, is not a lot of time. I understand if you say it doesn't fit guidelines, but it was kept after the last debate, so you need to give us time to repair the issue. Otherwise you can just keep relisting this articles over and over and we will never have time to work on them. Please note that almost all of the articles in this catagory were nominated last round, and there are only a few of us that can work on a solution.Iarann (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This in-universe article provides no real world context, analysis, critisism. There has been no improvement since the last nomination; no footnotes to verify the primary sources, nor has a single reliable secondary source been added to demonstrate notability outside of the Star Fleet Universe game. Basically, the article fails WP:NOT and there is no justification for keeping it. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article can be improved and referenced. I did not realize that Wikipedia was now on the deletionist's time table.  There is nothing here to merit a deletion, but rather an attempt to clean up the article.  Web Warlock (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Snide comments aside, ignoring the nominating concerns will not save the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Was up last month, needs time to be fixed. Hobit (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom and Gavin.collins. Fails WP:NOT, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NOTE. --Jack Merridew 10:34, 21 December 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.