Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

Template:Vfd

SoloTrek II

~~Delete~~ Merge - Article is about a non-canon, freeware (i.e. unlicensed) Trek game. -- Renegade54 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Are we sure it is unlicensed? Being freeware does not imply that. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not sure about the license... I did a search on the web, and there's not much out there. Typically, though, a company like Paramount charges (usually big bucks) for a license, which would mean that you would charge for the end product to recoup your investment, not give it away. In this case, I'd say guilty until proven innocent. :) -- Renegade54 18:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Likely could be stripped down and merged with one of the fan games things perhaps? Just a thought... -- Sulfur 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine, I think. It would need to come way down in detail, though. -- Renegade54 18:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with fan gaming. --From Andoria with Love 20:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Merged. --From Andoria with Love 12:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

unused templates

Template:USSEnterpriseNCC-1701SeniorStaff, Template:USSEnterpriseNCC-1701-DSeniorStaff, Template:USSEnterpriseNCC-1701-ESeniorStaff, Template:USSVoyagerSeniorStaff: Delete --Alan del Beccio 22:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We also have Template:EnterpriseNX-01SeniorStaff, which is used at the moment. I'm not sure if this specific type of template really makes sense (or, at least, if its inclusion on character pages does), but we should either delete all of them or keep all of them. At the moment, I'd say delete all, but I'd like to hear some additional voices on their potential usefulness first... -- Cid Highwind 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think these are particularly needed, IMO. An individual starship's article should already have the senior crewmembers listed, and that starship's page should be linked on the crewmembers' articles, so people can just refer to that. Um, I'm not sure if any of that made sense, so to translate: Delete all. --From Andoria with Love 07:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the four not being used, but don't have time to de-link the one being used at the moment. --From Andoria with Love 16:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So, I did the whole work, and then HE just deleted it... ;) -- Cid Highwind 21:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Saavedra" redirects

Saavedra's species, List of Saavedra's species: Deletion template added by User:Bp

Apparently misspelled redirects, though I don't know the story behind that - unless that misspelling was given in official sources, delete. -- Cid Highwind 12:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Theese pages were moved from here when we changed the spelling of Saavdra, which created these redirects. The talk is at Talk:Saavdra. There is no source for Saavedra except it kindof sounds that way. That's why I didn't {{delete}} the rd Saavedra, it's a likely phonetic spelling for someone searching. That's how I heard it when I watched the episode. --Bp 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons

Content of the article seems to be mostly conjecture and speculation. Most everything canon relating to the subject can be found at atomic weapon. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

they could be merged in one article. -<unsigned>

As they were. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet cadet uniforms

Starfleet cadet uniforms: Delete. I don't think this page is necessary as a separate article. If there's anything of use on the page, it should be merged with another uniform article. -- Renegade54 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Memory Alpha isn't paper, otherwise the asteroid would fill up real quick. :)--Kross^{Transmit on Holonet?} 20:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- The argument isn't that we are running out of space, it is whether there is enough material to keep a seperate article. Delete. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I, too, don't see the benefit of having a separate article each for 1. all uniforms in general, 2. uniforms by rank, 3. uniforms by era, even 4. uniforms by style AND 5. individual uniforms (identified, again, by rank, era and style). There has to be a better way to structure this data than to have dozens of stub pages linking to or even transcluding each other. At least, I suggest to start this whole thing like it is done in any other case - create one article, and start to split that up if it becomes too long - not create a web of articles with titles no one would ever search for and then try to build a coherent whole. If there even is original information at the moment, merge that to a central article (like, for example, Starfleet uniforms) - otherwise delete, if duplicate information. -- Cid Highwind 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep the article..
- i do see benefit for having an article for all uniforms in general.
- i do see benefit for having an article for all uniforms by position.
- i do see benefit for having an article for all uniforms by era.
- i do see benefit for having an article for all uniforms by style.
thanks for your input however, Cid.. you are doing a lot to help curb Memory Alpha's possible growth and i credit you for sticking to your guns on this :) -- Captain M.K.B. 05:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The page has potential, even if it just ends up being a disambig page. If every single Starfleet uniform seen was placed on the Starfleet uniforms page, things will get pretty crowded and quite complicated. -- SmokeDetector47^{( TALK )} 05:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Completely legit subject that shouldn't have been nominated for deletion. -- Krevaner 07:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Template:Cleanup

Template:Cleanup: Add this as well. Unused, obsolete. --Alan del Beccio 04:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Could still be useful for "compatibility" with Wikipedia... -- Cid Highwind 22:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hoax

Hoax: Besides the misleading title, this article is orphaned and, as far as I can tell, unnecessary. It's basically an attempt to re-create the "Requiem for a Martian" page that was voted for deletion a short time ago. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing misleading about the title: the title describes precisely what the article is about. As to it being an attempt to recreate the "Requiem for a Martian" page, it is exactly that: an attempt to recreate a page that was created specifically to debunk a hoax. Only in this case, it explicitly states its "real world POV," discusses hoaxes in general, and is explicitly documented. What possible reason would you have to object to a page that debunks hoaxes, unless you are yourself involved in the perpetuation of them? Keep. --James H. H. Lampert 18:08, 19 October 2006 (PDT)

Comment (actually a reply): First, yes the title is misleading, because, as you said, it is in regards to debunking hoaxes rather than explaining what the term means. Second, if it is a recreation of the "Requiem for a Martian" page, that would qualify it as an immediate deletion. And third, we don't create articles specifically for the purpose of debunking anything. We might note that hoaxes or what-not exist on other articles, but a page specifically for the purposes of saying something isn't real is not what we're here for. That's not to say that the article isn't well-written or well-documented, of course, but still. ;) --From Andoria with Love 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete, quickly. I nominated "Requiem for a Martian" for deletion (IIRC), and want this one gone too. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep. The subject of hoaxes with regard to Trek material is a valid issue. -- Krevaner 07:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Why should we further spread misinformation? I've only started to hear about this "Requiem for a Martian" during the last few weeks, is somebody trying to push this information into the foreground or something? Get rid of it. --Jörg 08:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)