| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
::See, I wouldn't mind a discussion about allowing or not allowing this whole type of article, and I've already said as much above. ''This'' deletion discussion, however, has been started because "no decision to have these articles has been made" (although the category page declared "script-only info" to be in its scope 4.5 years ago) and because "the object may be unreferenced" (D'Oh! - that's why it is categorized as "unreferenced material"). The following discussion looks more like trying to match the reasons to the wanted outcome than the other way around. '''Merging''', as sulfur suggested, is always an option if the article is short, but boils down to non-deletion of the content itself... -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 18:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC) |
::See, I wouldn't mind a discussion about allowing or not allowing this whole type of article, and I've already said as much above. ''This'' deletion discussion, however, has been started because "no decision to have these articles has been made" (although the category page declared "script-only info" to be in its scope 4.5 years ago) and because "the object may be unreferenced" (D'Oh! - that's why it is categorized as "unreferenced material"). The following discussion looks more like trying to match the reasons to the wanted outcome than the other way around. '''Merging''', as sulfur suggested, is always an option if the article is short, but boils down to non-deletion of the content itself... -- [[User:Cid Highwind|Cid Highwind]] 18:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC) |
||
| + | :::I think this should be merged with the episode article if it's not already in there as it is, after all, background information. If we did this for every similar item, we'd end up with dozens of one or two line articles. Deleted scenes I can understand, but script info - that should just go in the episode article. --| [[User:TrekFan|TrekFan]] <sup>[[User Talk:TrekFan|<span style="color:#00FF00;">Open a channel</span>]]</sup> 18:55, August 24, 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' deletion. (Or Keep, it doesn't matter) What is "unreferenced material" if it doesn't include unfilmed script information? The category page even says scripts are valid sources of information for the category.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 18:54, August 24, 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' deletion. (Or Keep, it doesn't matter) What is "unreferenced material" if it doesn't include unfilmed script information? The category page even says scripts are valid sources of information for the category.--[[User:31dot|31dot]] 18:54, August 24, 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 18:56, 24 August 2011
This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Aurelia (planet)".
- If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
- If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
- If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".
In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
Deletion rationale
I suggest the page on Aurelia (planet) be deleted since, as far as I know, no decision to create pages based on info exclusively from script info has been made. Personally, I think it'd be different if the planet appeared, etc., but I don't think it's even referenced, so I don't see the point of having this page. --Defiant 15:24, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
The page is designed as a production POV page (realworld header, no in-universe categories, Category:Unreferenced material), so it is not a standard (=in-universe) article. Oppose deletion, at least based on the reasons given. If you want all "unreferenced material" information to be deleted, that should better be discussed centrally. -- Cid Highwind 16:08, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - As far as I can see, this page is the only one whose content comes exclusively from the script, though. I'm not suggesting getting rid of pages like Martin Madden and Androna. There is a clear distinction (albeit one that you clearly haven't recognized, not to mention the fact that the correct word is "keep", rather than "oppose deletion"). --Defiant 16:19, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Keep, then. Whatever floats your boat - not that the intention wasn't totally clear before. The rest of your comment doesn't convince me to change that opinion. -- Cid Highwind 16:53, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: If it was only ever mentioned in a script, I'd be tempted to say either:
- merge it with the episode article, or
- start allowing unfilmed script production POV pages for all such items. -- sulfur 17:24, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I completely agree, which is why I'm interested in ascertaining whether the consensus is for the former or latter. --Defiant 17:34, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- I fear that the latter might open a "can of worms" of pages that we have no basis for other than a single user's word, or that sort of thing. It's a different scenario to how we currently treat deleted scenes info, which is generally confirmable from a variety of sources, and could be much messier than our current policy of allowing script info as bg info for in-universe pages (which is a lot easier to clean up, if found to be incorrect). --Defiant 17:43, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- See, I wouldn't mind a discussion about allowing or not allowing this whole type of article, and I've already said as much above. This deletion discussion, however, has been started because "no decision to have these articles has been made" (although the category page declared "script-only info" to be in its scope 4.5 years ago) and because "the object may be unreferenced" (D'Oh! - that's why it is categorized as "unreferenced material"). The following discussion looks more like trying to match the reasons to the wanted outcome than the other way around. Merging, as sulfur suggested, is always an option if the article is short, but boils down to non-deletion of the content itself... -- Cid Highwind 18:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- I think this should be merged with the episode article if it's not already in there as it is, after all, background information. If we did this for every similar item, we'd end up with dozens of one or two line articles. Deleted scenes I can understand, but script info - that should just go in the episode article. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:55, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- See, I wouldn't mind a discussion about allowing or not allowing this whole type of article, and I've already said as much above. This deletion discussion, however, has been started because "no decision to have these articles has been made" (although the category page declared "script-only info" to be in its scope 4.5 years ago) and because "the object may be unreferenced" (D'Oh! - that's why it is categorized as "unreferenced material"). The following discussion looks more like trying to match the reasons to the wanted outcome than the other way around. Merging, as sulfur suggested, is always an option if the article is short, but boils down to non-deletion of the content itself... -- Cid Highwind 18:46, August 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion. (Or Keep, it doesn't matter) What is "unreferenced material" if it doesn't include unfilmed script information? The category page even says scripts are valid sources of information for the category.--31dot 18:54, August 24, 2011 (UTC)