Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek Security


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. As a rationale, I cite arguments indicating a lack of notability, sources, and concerns of Original Research. The redirect on the search term proposed by RoninBK is reasonable, which will explain why this remains a bluelink. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Security

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Concern was: "Article on newly coined neologism with no reliable sources to indicate the term is in common usage; suggest deletion per WP:NOT/WP:NEO." Muchness (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced neologism. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not for stuff you made up in school one day. Pairadox (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable neologism. GlassCobra 06:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Somebody stick a red shirt on this neologism and beam it down to the surface. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, sounds like a fascinating talk, but severely lacks notability. Perhaps if it's widely adopted and appears in secondary sources ... that sort of thing. --Dhartung | Talk 07:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the aboveBeeblbrox (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as above (especially Clarityfriend - haha), also "Jason Muskat" does not appear to be a very notable name beyond certain forums and mailing lists.--Deadly&forall;ssassin(talk) 08:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above Canyouhearmenow 12:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - delightful article, but a seriously non-notable term. james gibbon  12:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a term apparently used only in one speech doesn't even rise to the term "neologism". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Never asserts notability Doc Strange (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "It's dead, Jim!" Not every phrase uttered in every lecture deserves an encyclopedia article absent any independent coverage in any reliable source. Pure original research. The observation that the computers on StarTrek had no passwords, so anyone could walk up and do anything, ignores the possibility that by then there are biometric methods of ensuring that the user is authorized. Edison (talk) 17:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole premise is severely faulty--I'm only a very casual watcher of Star Trek and I can recall several instances of password-like technology, including at least one whole episode that hinged on keeping what they called "command codes" out of the wrong hands. If I remember correctly, day-to-day stuff like accessing computer systems and such was done by "voiceprint" which was also a crucial plot point on occasion (like when Picard became a kid and the computer no longer recognised him as captain). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Trek continuity on the little things was never that great to begin with. But in any case faulty or not it still needs to be judged on notability rather than correctness. --Dhartung | Talk 21:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Utterly agreed that notability is the key, and there is a complete lack of it here. But FTR:  Self destruct sequences required authentication.  The Motion Picture had a retinal scan required to access material.  The Wrath of Khan showed that systems were encrypted with a "prefix code" to ensure commands came from authorized controls.  First Contact had an encryption that stymied the Borg.  In short, was this term at all notable, we fans would come out of the woodwork with cited ways that gives the lie to the definition.  So Article Self-Destruct Sequence One:  Code Delete, Delete, Delete-B,  :)  74.134.100.173 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Very enjoyable reading, but it doesn't belong here per WP:NEO. BusterD (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this article, and redirect search term to Starfleet -- RoninBK T C 00:34, 15 February 2008 (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.