This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 August 13. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete per WP:V. That policy states, in relevant part: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article is currently only sourced to two wikis, which are not reliable sources, and it does not appear to have had better sourcing at any time in the past. Furthermore, no specific sources have been provided here - links to mere lists of Google search results are inadequate. As a core policy, WP:V cannot be outweighed by consensus. I am therefore compelled to discount all "keep" opinions in the vein of "the sources are out there" and delete the article. It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N. Sandstein 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply a repetition of plot information from other Star Trek articles plot sections. As such, it is duplicative plot summary, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Regardless, this is a discussion, and I've provided my input. For an almost four-year-old article which has already undergone an AfD for similar reasoning, I expect it to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N if it were going to. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2008 August 13. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete per WP:V. That policy states, in relevant part: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article is currently only sourced to two wikis, which are not reliable sources, and it does not appear to have had better sourcing at any time in the past. Furthermore, no specific sources have been provided here - links to mere lists of Google search results are inadequate. As a core policy, WP:V cannot be outweighed by consensus. I am therefore compelled to discount all "keep" opinions in the vein of "the sources are out there" and delete the article. It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N. Sandstein 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply a repetition of plot information from other Star Trek articles plot sections. As such, it is duplicative plot summary, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Regardless, this is a discussion, and I've provided my input. For an almost four-year-old article which has already undergone an AfD for similar reasoning, I expect it to meet WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N if it were going to. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC) reply