Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet General Orders


 * 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 -- JForget 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet General Orders

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article establishes no notability, has no referencing per WP:RS, and is just plot repetition from the various episodes of Star Trek where the General Orders are used. As they are already mentioned where appropriate, this duplicates that and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, it is a relativly significant part of the show. With a quick google search I found quite a few pages the enumerate and discuss the starfleet general orders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewedge (talk • contribs) 04:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are fan sites, and do not count toward the notability and referencing I am referring to, see WP:FICTION and WP:RS. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, the only one of these with even a breath of notability in the real world is the Prime Directive, which has its own article. The rest of this is just trek-cruft.  Take it to Memory Alpha if need be.  Lankiveil (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC).


 * Delete. A careful perusal of Google Books and Google Scholar reveals nothing substantive about anything but the Prime Directive. No, not even ISBN 0966808029 (Star Trek Visions of Law and Justice). Other than that, all we have is quotes from the show(s) and plot summary, and that fails WP:FICT hard. --Dhartung | Talk 05:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/redirect/merge. This article supplements the General order article.  Reworking this material is not a matter of deletion but of content editing.  I have added a citation to indicate how the article might be improved.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: per above. This is, in fact, a relatively INsignificant part of the show, as the term "General Orders" is only as such very rarely mentioned.  A hardcore enough Trekkie to want to read these will already know about Memory Alpha.    RGTraynor  09:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I am a huge Star Trek fan (although I admit that I don't really like TOS and love ENT), but the only ones on that that I would consider notable are the Prime Directive and the Omega Directive (Prime much moreso than Omega though).  TJ   Spyke   09:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Sorry, but I must agree on this matter.  I was a contributor to this article.  But seriousely -- this is an in universe article.  Star Trek's notability is clear cut.  But this is a general reference encyclolpedia.  An article about Star Trek can be justified; but breaking it down to sub-articles such as this is not justifiable here.  There is a Star Trek related Wiki site where material like this belongs.  But it does not belong in a general reference work.  -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)  [[Image:confused-tpvgames.gif]] This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)
 * Comment Per the most fundamental statement of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias.... The existence of secondary sources such as Memory Alpha supports inclusion rather than being a reason to delete as it is evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha, being a wiki, is not considered a reliable source. See WP:SPS. --Dhartung | Talk 19:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant because the issue in this little thread is notability rather than verifiability. If the Memory Alpha project considers the subject worthy of inclusion then this is evidence of notability because, obviously, they have noted it.  It's not a major reason to keep but the existence of Memory Alpha is no reason at all for deletion, as User:Jason Palpatine asserts.  If all content were moved to some specialised place where it supposedly belongs then we would be left with nothing.  Wikipedia is a superset of all the topics which secondary sources have found notable.  Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Definitely not notable.  Malinaccier (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm with Spyke on this. Memory Alpha already covers this and I have just merged some non-canon info from here into Memory Beta. Maybe delete then redirect to Law in Star Trek to prevent re-creation. - Fayenatic (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Prime Directive. This is a reasonable search term (and redirects hardly take up any space), and the content of this article would provide a nice supplement to the material in the Prime Directive entry, particularly as many of the directives as mentioned in episodes/films are discussed in either an implied or explicit relation to the Prime Directive. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a search term it would still find various articles, from where a reader could click on a link to Memory Alpha, and so read it there. I've just added an external link in Law in Star Trek to the Memory Alpha page on Starfleet General Orders and Regulations, which provides fuller info and context. There are only 3 incoming links from articles on episodes/races, and each of these three fully explains the relevant Order in the article, so the link adds little or nothing. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Perhaps it might be smarter to merge/redirect Prime Directive to this instead? This is more of a parent article. GlassCobra 20:53, 9 January 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.