This was the Archive where discussions were moved to from the Deletion pages after it had been resolved by deletion of the page in subject. Discussions were added chronologically by date of deletion, oldest at the bottom.

See also: Deletion archive 2006, Deletion archive 2005, Deletion archive 2004, Deletion archive 2003.

Votes for deletionEdit

Possible copyright infringementsEdit

14 April 2008 Edit

USS Hannibal Edit

In addition to not belonging on Memory Alpha in the first place since it is fandom, this is taken from Star Trek Expanded Universe, which is published under GFDL. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

10 October 2007 Edit

File:Zoe Saldana.jpgEdit

File:Zoe Saldana.jpg
This is taken from The bottom of the linked page, Source: clearly states:

Please Note: All material on this page is original content, and intellectual property of Any unauthorized or uncredited use of this material will result in possible prosecution.

Keep this and MA is asking to get sued. Get rid of it immediately. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eyes Only (talk • contribs).

The following was moved from Memory Alpha:Images for deletion.
Uncited copyrighted image with a very bad (albeit true) caption. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 10:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep: it clearly states the source of the image and fair use is thus implied. Ferenginar 07:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Delete : When you follow the source and reads its 'User Agreement' there is a heading Permitted Use of Content which says, among other things, ...The Content is protected by copyright, trademark, service mark, patent and other proprietary rights and laws. Although the following is mentioned, All Content is made available to you for your personal, non-commercial use and may be stored on a computer only for such use, I think this does not mean you can upload it to MA. Seem to me this image is a {{copyvio}}. (if not, it needs to be cleanedup because of the commercials in the background) -- Q 08:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you (Ferenginar) took care of the uncited & bad caption part of my qualms with the image, but that still doesn't change the fact that the image is copyrighted under a license agreement that does not give us permission to use the image, as pointed out by Q above. (Then again, MA is non-commercial, isn't it?) --From Andoria with Love 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, MA is non-commercial but if I have no idea if this then means the image may be used/stored here. Don't known if MA can be considered for your personal use. My knowledge about copyrights is very limited :) Then again, if in doubt don't use the image, then your are sure no copyright will be violated. (or get permission by the copyright holder to use it on MA) -- Q 21:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
DELETE AT ONCE. This image is from The bottom of the source page,, clearly states: Please Note: All material on this page is original content, and intellectual property of Any unauthorized or uncredited use of this material will result in possible prosecution.
To emphasise the seriousness of this, I put a {{copyvio}} on the image page. Far be it from me to leap to recommend the deletion of anyone's contribution, but in this case I must. Every second this image stays here exposes MA to possible legal action should it be found here by Fair use does not apply here. Get rid of it now.
Watching... listening... 21:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Since this has now been brought to the copyright infringement page and already has two votes for deletion (it was past seven days on the deletion page anyway), this image will now be deleted. --From Andoria with Love 01:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Scottys memories.jpg Edit

File:Scottys memories.jpg
I just discovered we're not allowed to use images, ans the source givin for this image is the identical image from the website. It deserves to be deleted or replaced. --Nmajmani 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Replacement image is not a copyvio. So... :) -- Sulfur 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Copied from InfoPlease. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Moved from the original pfd:
I don't believe Ethiopia was ever mentioned in Star Trek, and even the article doesn't mention anything about Star Trek. I'm not certain but it might even be from an encyclopedia. 31dot 19:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Ditto. Remove... and that's two additional votes. :) -- Sulfur 19:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

19 August 2007Edit

File:Deep Space Nine concept.jpgEdit

File:Deep Space Nine concept.jpg
Image was taken from which, IIRC, does not permit images from their site to be used elsewhere. --From Andoria with Love 17:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Do not fear; Ottens is here! Replaced the image with something more acceptable. Ottens 22:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Grooviness. :) I withdraw my nomination for deletion... or whatever. :P --From Andoria with Love 03:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

28 July 2007Edit


Where in Trek was this shown/mentioned? -- Kingfisher 23:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that comes immediately to mind is the samurai in "Shore Leave"; was he conspicuously shown to be using a katana? In any case, this entry should (obviously) be trimmed back to whatever's Trek-ly relevant to whatever reference might be found. --TommyRaiko 23:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup. image here. Regardless, it is a copyvio (more or less copied from here, so we shall treat it as that until it can be rewritten. --Alan 00:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

8 November 2006 Edit

Heritage Games Edit

Heritage Games
As above, structure and content are copied from a Wikipedia article - although the talk page seems to claim something else. Incompatible license, so this needs to be rewritten or deleted. -- Cid Highwind 15:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
ADDITION: I'm not sure yet what exactly happened in regard to this article: Star Trek: Adventure Gaming in the Final Frontier (Heritage Models). The talk page claims that its content was "transplanted from Heritage Games", but the exact details would need to be checked first. This might be a part of the copyvio, a pagemove done the wrong way (would need attribution from Heritage Games history) or something else altogether. -- Cid Highwind 15:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I moved the article to make the structure parallel with the other articles on gaming. I am not the original author. If it need rewritings I will rewriting it in 2 articles under the title of game and Heritage Models. The Heritage Games page should not really exist since it does not match our structure and it is the incorrect name of the publisher.--Great Bear 18:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert RyanEdit

Robert Ryan
Copied word for word from Robert Ryan at Wikipedia. -- Sulfur 14:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

13 September 2006Edit

File:1077837760 l-1-.jpg Edit

File:1077837760 l-1-.jpg

Taken from Deviant art, specifically The Trouble with Androids, which is listed as copyrighted to ~chibi-glorfindel. DeviantArt does not take kindly to work by their artists being used without permission, and will go after websites that do so. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, well I've never seen it before how was I supposed to know :P -- Delete. - AJ Halliwell 23:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the really sad thing is that I have looked through the thousands of Star Trek fan art images from DevArt and remembered this one. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 23:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

11 September 2005Edit

Cosmological constant Edit

Cosmological constant

While some of the formatting has been removed, the contents of the text are taken word for word from --OuroborosCobra talk 17:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

5 September 2006Edit

Star Trek: Mirror Universe Edit

A direct copy from Star Trek/Mirror Universe at Wikipedia. Same kind of information as in our Mirror universe article, so somewhat wasted really.

Other articles from the same user (that are also copyvios) are:

  • Mirror, Mirror (Star Trek)
  • In a Mirror, Darkly (Enterprise episode)

-- Sulfur 13:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio -- Kobi 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

22 August 2006Edit

Trial and Error & Tom McCraw Edit

Somebody got mistaken and thought that these links about Star Trek comics are actually about another book unrelated to Trek and on a baseball player rather than the comic artist. - Enzo Aquarius 23:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete both, very quickly. Since they were incorrect info, I think they should qualify as immediate deletions myself, but I'm not sure they fit our current qualifications. --From Andoria with Love 23:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Further update. Tom McCraw is a real biography on the comic book colorist now. Trial and Error! is also a comic book article now. Both thanks to me. :) The old versions of both should likely be turfed though. -- Sulfur 00:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

16 August 2006Edit

First Contact script Edit

from talk page

Are there any copyright issues involved in having this here? -- Renegade54 16:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably, and even if there aren't, I am not sure that scripts belong here on MA. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my second concern. :) -- Renegade54 17:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Even beside the copyright concerns, of which I did'nt thought about the time I posted the article otherwise I would not have posted it in the first place, why should scripts not belong to MA ? Other production facts seem to be no problem, like set dressing or props for example. -- Q 17:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Memory Alpha cannot reproduce entire works such a scripts without permission, as that constitutes a major copyright infringement. Besides, why would we need to use up space on MA when we can just post a link to the script on the specific articles? --From Andoria with Love 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Size is also an issue. This article is 262 kb long. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
from vfd
I personally don't think we should be adding scripts to MA, especially draft scripts. This may even be a copyvio (I did not list it as such on purpose, as I have no evidence to support that claim). I think it would be far better for us to simply link to an external site with scripts, especially when they are only drafts. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

12 August 2006Edit


Copied, as cited from Encyclopedia...but in reality, this shouldnt be rewritten, but turned into a redirect to the already existing Sirillium. --Alan del Beccio 03:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Starfleet Command: Orion Pirates Edit

One part Interplay, one part TrekCore... all copyvio. --From Andoria with trekcoLove 23:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Votes for undeletionEdit

Curry class (and other re-directs) [4/29/08]Edit

I'd like to remake the redirects for the starship classes that we refer to as types (since there is no canon class name). These types are frequently confused for classes, and would be helpful redirects. I can't really picture any down side (its not like we have limited space). --- Jaz 05:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides being invalid according to our naming conventions, I can think of misuse (that would be continuously monitored (and rarely is in these scenarios)), and general confusion with more pointless discussions about why it's this over that and not the other. Also, if you type "Curry class" or even "Curry" into the search on the left, one of the first 5 results is almost guaranteed to be Curry-type. --Alan 05:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Especially because these type names aren't official, it's hard to imagine too many visitors searching for the exact term - and even if they do, they will find Curry type and USS Curry immediately. Not only is there no real need for this redirect, it would also be a case of a misleading article title which might very easily come into use via {{Class}}. I oppose that. -- Cid Highwind 06:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose undeletion, for the reasons listed above.--31dot 22:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Soulless minions of orthodoxy [7/9/08] Edit

The deletion discussion for this page is here. The page was deleted because it was a euphemism that didn't refer to a specific group. I disagree with this as a reason for deletion.

I would start with the proposition that MA articles may be written on anything seen or referenced in a Star Trek episode. Elias Giger claimed a group was following him, and this group's (non)-existence and their alleged actions were an important part of "In the Cards". We have articles on the equally fictional USS Lollipop, Corbomite etc.

So would you not say it would be fair enough to have a page on this alleged group? And if naming the page, we would choose "Soulless minions of orthodoxy", Giger's term for them.

We have a page for the Old Ones (extragalactic) - an authority known by no other name, equally euphemistic.

To reply to R54's statement that we wouldn't have pages on "the powers that be" or "unwashed masses" - why not? If these got mentioned repeatedly (like the Soulless minions of orthodoxy), why should we let the euphemistic name stop us from documenting their alleged actions?

As for the idea that the term doesn't refer to a specific group ... how do we know? It seems more to me that Giger is referring to lots of organisations and people being affiliated with one secret group. It's like he's claiming the Illuminati is stopping him. How do we know the Old Ones (extragalactic) were one monolithic entity?

As for the supporting delete comment: "Why would anyone think this needed an entry?", MA has no notability requirements for in-universe articles. We have articles on fictional (in the ST universe) things that are much, much, more obscure (like firomactal drive).– Cleanse 06:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards Oppose undeletion. This case is a little different than a simple fictional object or group. He's not making it up for a story(like Lightning shield) or as a deception (like Firomactal drive), he is because he's paranoid(and I took from the episode that the paranoia was based on some kind of mental instability).
If it was simply a case of not knowing whether or not it was an actual group, I could understand having this article. This 'group', though, would seem to be a paranoid rambling. I don't think that merits an article. It would be like having articles on the images of Kira and Damar in "Waltz" or of mirror Archer's image of our Archer in IAMD. --31dot 09:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue at all. Since when do we delete things based on a value judgment of their likelihood/ truthfulness? The article can (and did) state that it was part of Giger's paranoid delusions.

We have numerous pages on other delusions.

The reality of these is questionable, but yet they have a page.

We also have Giger's Cellular regeneration and entertainment chamber as a page, and this "technology" is equally crazy. – Cleanse 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As to your examples, your first one was a creation of the entity plaguing the ship, not a random delusion of Chekov. The delusions of Riker and The Doctor were drawn from their memories, and so have a basis in reality. The Chamber, though having a questionable usefulness, was an actual piece of equipment.
As far as we know, he wasn't talking about anything other than the general public whom he perceived as being after him. That might warrant a mention on the Slang page, but without something to suggest that it wasn't just the public, I don't think we need to bring this article back.--31dot 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to refer to a specific group, just saying that "Those that follow orthodox things are following me!" I doubt it was deleted on the grounds it wasn't real in the trek universe, just that it was a loose saying - not really about anything. Just like we don't need a page for "whatsit-bags of mostly water" from the early TNG ep, or "those that walked beneath the raptors wing" from ENT. Anything the page would say can be said on Elias's page imo. - AJ Halliwell 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
He certainly thought they existed in some capacity, and were responsible for Bathkin's death:
  • GIGER: "I haven't done anything wrong and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy. I haven't broken any laws! Except perhaps the laws of nature. So stay away from me!'"
  • GIGER: "Since you are not, in fact, working for the soulless minions of orthodoxy that have hounded my work and plagued my existence..."
  • GIGER: "Unfortunately, before he could finish his work, Doctor Bathkin later died in a shuttle accident -- or so they say -- but while the soulless minions of orthodoxy refused to follow up on his important research, I could hear the clarion call of destiny."
  • NOG: "Maybe the soulless minions of orthodoxy finally caught up with him."
  • ODO: "The who?"
  • JAKE: "We don't know who they are, but they were after Doctor Giger's Cellular Regeneration and Entertainment Chamber."
  • GIGER: "You betrayed me! You turned me over to these soulless minions of orthodoxy! Well, they won't discover the secret of my work without a..."
There is certainly no lack of references, and we've written articles on far less. --Alan 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
No one has denied there were several references to it, but to what is the question. There is very little evidence that it is anything more than a reference to the general public, perhaps represented through a government(possibly the Federation, assuming this guy was human).
I would be curious as to how much less than this you could get to write an article about.....--31dot 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Institute" and anything else we list that is "unnamed"... --Alan 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not we could write something is not the question, whether or not we should is. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW. This reminds me of "The Beast" with many heads, which was to some Americans in "Future's End, Part II" the force that drove the world toward collectivity manifesting itself as the Federal government. (I don't know if that should be noted in Devil or USA article, both, or have a page of its own ...) --Pseudohuman 22:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that should be noted on both the USA page and the Slang page. As said above, this "minions" group(assuming they exist at all) could also be noted as slang.--31dot 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that more than ten days have passed, does that mean this discussion is concluded, as described in the undeletion policy?--31dot 23:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, but seeing it's my suggestion, I'll let another admin archive it.

For the record, I still think this is a mistake, and that it goes against our goal to be the most complete Star Trek encyclopedia. The "Soulless Minions of Orthodoxy" are a BIG part of "In the Cards", with a reasonable amount of info to write on them. As I demonstrated above, the fact that they are non-existent has proved irrelevant in deciding what articles are created. The fact that they are euphemistic has also been irrelevant, with Institute and Old Ones, among others.

In the alternative though, I would propose we undelete this, merge into Elias Giger and keep the redirect.– Cleanse 02:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable to me. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I can live with that as well.--31dot 21:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This was the original content:
Feel free to integrate it manually into the article and I, or another admin, can later restore and merge the histories accordingly. Otherwise, I should note that "The Man," has its own article on wikipedia...much less the fact that we also have an article for Uncle Sam. --Alan 02:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Anybody? --Alan 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Andorian tea [12/4/09]Edit

Andorian Tea IS a beverage in Star Trek canon. Please see the Star Trek: The Next Generation first season episode "Conspiracy" (it is mentioned by name at 00:30:57) When Picard is at Starfleet Command and is talking to the Admirals before dinner, they drink Andorian Tea which, according to the episode, is a "excellent aperitif" (00:31:47). Therefore, it should be reinstated as a legitimate (and canonical) Andorian alcoholic beverage. - – Lt.arex 22:46, December 4, 2009 (UTC)Lt.arex

Actually it's "Andonian tea" and not Andorian. Keep deleted. — Morder (talk) 22:52, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
This should be easy enough to confirm with the script, if someone has it handy(or is that where you looked, Morder?)--31dot 23:20, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's how I found the right page.
			Let's have some Andonian tea while
			we wait for your Riker. Then you
			can tell us what's brought you here.
Morder (talk) 23:21, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is some evidence of an unscripted change, I'll end this discussion in a couple days or so(or someone else can do so sooner)--31dot 23:26, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
The episode itself also didn't sound like Andorian so I don't see it being even an unscripted one. — Morder (talk) 23:27, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Tracy [4/19/2012] Edit

Suggest restoration for the same rationale as above(now would be a proper disambig). 31dot 10:55, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

  • The intent of the disambig change was not to replace the search. This page simply replaces the search because every name except one has "Tracy" as the first name. The search bar covers all of those on its own now. So, oppose. -- sulfur 13:15, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, as the search function has been broken for well over a month now, and it's not like wikia has a long track record of quickly fixing problems with the basic functionality of the site, so we can't, and shouldn't, rely on the search function working now or ever. It also costs us nothing to have a disambiguation, and in cases where the number of disambiguated pages exceeds the search suggestions the page wouldn't be replacing the search function, it would be more helpful than the search function. - Archduk3 17:18, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
    • For the search bug -- can you please take the time, document exactly what is broken (and how) and email it to me? I'll followup with Wikia on this one. -- sulfur 18:04, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Archiving per the Undeletion policy. 31dot 15:13, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

William [4/19/2012] Edit

Suggest restoration as it is now a valid disambig, but only the original page should be restored, not the other versions listed in the delete log. 31dot 10:55, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is the same as "Tracy" in that every name starts with "Bill", "Billy", or "William". A disambiguation page should not replace the search. One like "Picard" works because it covers last names, something that doesn't come up easily in the search. The "Carey" one works a bit better, but I still have my misgivings about that one, as it's 2 surnames (one an in-universe character), and two first names (one in-universe). -- sulfur 13:15, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that last names are OK for this sort of thing, just not first names? I could live with that, I just want to make sure I understand you. 31dot 15:43, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yes -- first names are taken care of nicely by the search engine. "Proper" disambiguation pages differentiate between "Bob (Ensign)" and "Bob (Crewman)", whereas our extra disambig pages (such as "Picard") differentiate between things that our search engine can't cope well with (such as "Jean-Luc Picard" and "Maurice Picard"). -- sulfur 16:19, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per my reasoning above. - Archduk3 17:18, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

I want to clarify that while I am not opposed to what Sulfur has said here and could live with it, I still maintain support of my suggestion. 31dot 01:50, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Archiving per the Undeletion policy. 31dot 15:13, April 19, 2012 (UTC)