Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/StarTrek.com


 * 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.  «  A NIMUM   »  01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

StarTrek.com

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Official website of Star Trek television series but other than that completely not notable and should not be listed in an encyclopedia. This article clearly falls under WP:SPEEDY's criteria for deletion of websites: "Web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." Refer to Criteria for speedy deletion and WP:WEB, as it relates to this type of article. -- Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator. --  Wikipedical 16:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... Correct me if I'm wrong, but Star Trek is pretty damn notable. With that being said, the official website is notable as well.  All this article needs is some improvement -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What is notable about it? What is the "impact or historical significance" of this site?  Should every official website get a Wikipedia page?  That's what WP:WEB is for.  --  Wikipedical 17:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well....per your own link WP:WEB Criteria #1 is The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. . I've love love LOVE for you to argue how Star Trek is not notable.  The content of the website has to do with the TV show/movies/franchise.  There is no way in the world this would not pass notability standards. -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The content itself..." is referring to the SITE itself. Of course there are published works about Star Trek but not StarTrek.com!  I'm not saying Star Trek is not notable, I am saying that StarTrek.com isn't.  --  Wikipedical 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The content itself..." is talking about the CONTENT. IE:  What's INSIDE the website, ie:  The Star Trek Franchise.  -- su mn ji m  talk with me·changes 17:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Star Trek is the subject of the content, but the content would mean the actual, literal articles or other offerings on the site. By your interpretation, any fan site about a notable topic could satisfy WB:WEB. Propaniac 18:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * redirect to Star Trek, and merge whatever of this content is worth keeping. I don't see where WP:WEB says anything about official sites. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Septentrionalis.--Edtropolis 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge to Star Trek. Doesn't require a standalone article and not much scope for expansion. Clarityfiend 17:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to a section of Star Trek as while this is certainly reasonably content to cover, it's still highly connected to the series itself. FrozenPurpleCube 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested above, website isn't particularly notable except as the official website of a very notable franchise - really nothing to say about it independently.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Otherwise, if Important person has a website, then ImportantPersonWebsite.com is automatically notable enough to have a Wikipedia article as well?  Similarly, Important Company and ImportantCompanyWebsite.com?  Ridiculous.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect Alexa rank of 21,179 does not demonstrate notability. Carlossuarez46 21:24, 18 June 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.