Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulcan (Star Trek planet)


 * 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   no consensus, defaulting to keep. While there are a number of calls for merging the content to Vulcan (Star Trek), there are also a significant enough number of comments in support of keeping or deleting it outright. Since it is clear from the discussion below that there is no firm consensus on what to do with the content, the default result is keep.

However, since this decision comes from a lack of consensus rather than a clear mandate, those in favor of merging the content can certainly pursue this course through the regular merge process. -- jonny - m t  07:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Vulcan (Star Trek planet)

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just plot repetition from the Star Trek articles. As such, it is purely in-universe duplication and is already covered in the article on Vulcans, the Vulcan characters, and the episode articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup as there's tons of pop cultural references to the planet. Just add references and clean up the cruft. 70.51.9.17 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC) — 70.51.9.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as there are plenty of real-world references to Vulcan serious (like or ),  scholarly (like ), and fluffy (like ) outside the direct realm of Trek fiction. Yes, the article needs reworking but that's not an issue for AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * note. That scholarly source, Rise of the Vulcans, refers that other Vulcan, the Roman god of the forge. The pop culture references may be worth a merge/expansion at Vulcan (Star Trek). • Gene93k (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - as above. Think outside the box 13:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * weak keep Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of references and redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). If someone jumps in and adds cited real-world material/information, then merge that content to Vulcan (Star Trek). I don't see a compelling reason for this article to sit separate from the article for the race. --EEMIV (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources makes this article a bunch of original research. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete then redirect per EEMIV. The article is fan fiction mixed with original research. It is essentially a mirror of the Memory Alpha entry. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep , one of the most famous planets in Star Trek. Of course I'm biased towards Star Trek, but hey, this is the homeworld of the most famous non-human race in the whole Star Trek franchise. J I P  | Talk 17:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My Star Trek bias is showing. Vote changed to merge to Vulcan (Star Trek) per the comments below. The race itself is obviously and utterly notable, but the only notable fact about their homeworld is about how unbearably hot there is. J I P  | Talk 19:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Merge and) redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). The race has a reasonable defacto claim of notability with Spock and all, the fictional planet hasn't. Real-world information like design, development, reception and cultural impact likely does not exist for the planet, i.e. major notability and NOT#PLOT problems. – sgeureka t•c 18:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (Merge and) redirect to Vulcan (Star Trek). Fails WP:N and is full of in-universe pseudoscientific nomenclature. Edison (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect' to Vulcan. There is nothing here that warrants a standalone article. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Marge and redirect - I'm a trekkie myself, but I don't think this has anything of note that can't be on Vulcan (Star Trek). --Explodicle (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup as desired. This is a major recurring setting for a major science fiction franchise, on par with (picking at random) Tatooine and Skaro. If it was just a one-time planet like so many others in the Trek franchise, then I'd say kill it, but this is Vulcan we're talking about. It's the No. 2 planet in the whole franchise next to Earth. I don't see the sense in redirecting or merging to the article on the race, because the planet exists separately from the race, especially in a SF context (put another way, if a future Trek storyline exterminates all Vulcans, the planet would continue to exist; if the planet were destroyed the race would continue to exist. (For another example from another franchise, see Time Lords and Gallifrey). 23skidoo (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although merger and redirect are a good second choice, the article Vulcan (Star Trek) is pretty massive already (59,543 bytes) and a split off article about the planet itself seems like something that would need to be done eventually. I see no reason why two articles can't exist.  As others have pointed out, it's arguably the most famous of fictional planets, with multiple references made to it in the past 42 years.  Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge in terms of WP:SIZE Vulcan (Star Trek) is not bursting at the seams. The only way I see this content signifigantly growing is through abuses of WP:PLOT.  If it grows with good stuff, split it off later. -Verdatum (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no "bursting at the seams" policy for size of articles. It's a credible topic on its own.  --Blechnic (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:MERGE reasons 2, 3, and 4, combined with WP:SPLIT; or WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Being a "credible topic" is not sufficient criteria for the existence of an article. -Verdatum (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice, but limited try There's neither a "bursting at the seams" in WP:Merge nor reasons "2, 3, 4," by the way. But I'm guessing you knew that when you threw these out.  --Blechnic (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reasons 2, 3 and s/he's talking about are probably the overlap, text, context reasons. --EEMIV (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you EEMIV, you are quite right. I didn't think that would be too terribly hard to figure out since they are the enumerated content after the phrase "reasons to merge" at the very top, but Blechnic seems more interested in being "Right" than reading and understanding policies that reflect concensus. -Verdatum (talk) 20:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mind reader you. But, wait, there's a policy against mind reading.  Try to stay on the topic, it's the planet Vulcan, not me.  --Blechnic (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cleanup unsourced stuff, sure, but this is a viable topic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR and trivia. No encyclopedic content to merge. Redirect is unnecessary as "vulcan" itself is the likely search term and the species is already included on the DAB page. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm reluctant for a merge and then (possibly after the new ST film, which may add more info,and will no doubt see a few books will new info at least) fork at a later date, keep it seperate and save the trouble. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge, Vulcanis was the forge that made the Vulcans the way they are; the two are inextricably linked. It will improve the Vulcan (race) article, and no harm will be done. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect; no need for there to be a separate Vulcan (Star Trek) and Vulcan (Star Trek planet) page. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 06:30, 4 June 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.