Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transtator


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Transtator

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Prod converted to AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Was prodded "No references, no evidence of notability", but many people likely will come across the word in Star Trek and look it up here. A link is needed from here to the full description http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Transtator in the Memory Alpha wiki. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as original PROD-er—the article appears to fail WP:N, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not familiar with Star Trek devices but my searches found nothing to suggest there's much about this. I'm not seeing a target for moving as well. SwisterTwister   talk  23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to universal translator. Artw (talk) 11:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? Based on the Memory Alpha article, transtators don't seem to have anything to do with universal translators in Star Trek. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I was thinking if general SF usage, but that's not the only use of the word and then we're into dicdef and really a delete is probably for the best. Artw (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This subject is well covered in Star Trek literature. There are many Star Trek fans. Many of them will want to know what the word "transtator" means, and many of those will look it up in Wikipedia. Ultimately, Wikipedia is for people to look for information in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but said information ought to be selective, not just "whatever anyone could someday want to search". Most articles of the scientific literature are of interest to some research community, and it rarely has verifiability problems, but it does not follow WP ought to mirror the latest advances because it is interesting only for a narrow community. Tigraan (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly not notable. Without coverage by secondary sources (and why would anyone cover this?), no reason to have a WP article. PianoDan (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I wouldn't have thought that this was notable enough for WP. It isn't like it as well known as Dilithium (Star Trek) for example. Miyagawa (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2015 (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.