Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taelons

Appears to be purely fictional, but without context it should be deleted. Deb 11:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Wierd aliens-are-amongst-us article - hence why I added vfd. Unless this can be re-written from a NPOV describing who these people are (not easy looking at the results from a quick google search) then this should be deleted. CheekyMonkey 11:25, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article describes a major alien race appearing in scifi TV series. I count articles describing no less than 126 fictional alien races from List_of_aliens_in_fiction. Which, incidentally, this page is linked from. I see no reason to delete this page. --Nickco3 12:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not worse than the other 6000 articles in Category:Fictional and subcategories. I just added categorization. Please help the Category:Fictional categorization effort to prevent alien races invading real life. -- Pjacobi 12:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I'm not a massive Gene_Roddenberry fan, there's plenty of other stuff on things he's dreamt up on wikipedia. Kim Bruning 12:22, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs a little copyediting, but otherwise I see no reason to delete it, just because it is fictional. Lyellin 12:44, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not very good scifi, but prominent, and Taelons were the basis of the plot. Needs cleaning, but it's useful. (For that matter, the entry on the show could stand some work- like the airing dates?) -FZ 12:51, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge & Delete: Before everyone gets in an uproar, let me explain why. These critters were a staple of Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict.  Ok, the show ran in syndication for 5 years or so.  It was, as far as I can tell, never particularly popular.  So, we have a show that is notable but on the low end.  So, my argument for deletion is that breaking out a full article on one fictional species from a show that isn't tremendously significant is a bad general idea.  There is much to say about the species, yes.  That's the nature of shows that run for five years.  I'd rather see this merged with Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict.  Geogre 13:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Geogre--keep. I'd say articles about this alien species--playing as they did a central role--are worthy. Of course, somebody should write Earth: Final Conflict. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:26, 2004 Aug 12 (UTC)
 * Need to create? It's been there since May 2002.
 * Merge and Redirect. This information should be in the article on the series, not in an article to itself. If these aliens played so central of a role, then they are essential for explaining the television series and are entangled in its plot. A separate article only becomes redundant as it attempts to explain all the nuances--which are already explained in the main article--of a fictional universe that are necessary in order to have an informative article. For example, the first two paragraphs of the present article quite clearly belong in the main article. Information that is revealed in certain episodes, possibly that about the scientist, and is not about highly persistent and consistent things in the fiction, belongs in articles under those particular episodes. The information in the 3-4 paragraphs is possibly of this type, or it looks like it might be crucial to the overall plot, in which case it would belong in the main article. - Centrx 19:23, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: seems like a personal bias to delete.--Ern 02:41, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * disregard this vote. all 6 edits on vfd. --Jiang 07:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * And his reason doesn't make any sense. I must have a vendetta against the evil Taelons, banish them from the Wikipedia! - Centrx 14:57, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, they are "Taelons," aka "Telons" (Greek coinage for "end dwellers"), as in Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End -- the characters in which they closely resemble, until they turn all evil and stuff. Geogre 20:08, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. As per Centrix. One big article with sections is usually better than lots of little articles that repeat information. Jallan 21:56, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this article has come a long way since being VfD'd and could be extended to be quite good. -- 66.32.114.171 19:49, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * there is no longer a need to vote in this matter - the vote is over, with the conclusion that the article should be retained. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:15, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)