Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,147
pages

Memory Alpha:Deletion archive 2005

Revision as of 12:34, 8 November 2004 by Redge (talk | contribs)
Sign in to edit

This is the Archive where discussion is moved to from the Deletion pages after it has been resolved by deletion of the page in subject. Please add discussions chronologically by date of deletion, oldest at the bottom.

Deletion Pages: Votes for deletion, Images for deletion, Possible copyright infringements, Pages for immediate deletion

See also: Deletion log, Votes for undeletion

Votes for deletion

(Dr.) Fitzgerald (October 29th, 2004)

  • - non-canon reference for name, naming convention error. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:12, Oct 28, 2004 (CEST)
    • I made some research and found that it is canon according to Decipher's Star Trek CCG which works in collaboration with Paramount for the informations. The picture correspond to the character on screen so, keep. --- The VIP 19:01, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)
      • TheVIP, we are aware of this. At this time, Memory Alpha is only attempting to post articles with information derived from canon sources. As such, and non-filmed matter (such as a licensed company like Decipher and not the true Paramount productions. Any information about this unnamed character should go as a subheading of List of USS Voyager personnel under the /* Unnamed characters */ subdivision. Information about the Pocket Books novelization Pocket VGR:"Emissary (novel)" and the Star Trek Collectible Card Game named for him, as Fitzgerald, belongs in a footnote subheading, as its not a true canon reference-- Captain Mike K. Bartel 02:03, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • As Mike described, delete page but move any useful content to List of USS Voyager personnel. -- Cid Highwind 12:43, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Senior Officer in Charge (October 29th, 2004)

Accelerator/generator (October 29th, 2004)

  • is there a way to restate this without a slash in the article title? besides, i can't even tell what series or episode this is from. when we have a source, i recommend moving to a new title and deleting this one, for the slash-character. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • agreed. --kamagurka 22:27, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • No idea what this is about. Delete or at least Move. -- Cid Highwind 12:43, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • agreed unless there is a source for this? --Lsigler 12:55, 29 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Ullia system (October 29th, 2004)

Nietzschean (October 29th, 2004)

  • Though a concept by Gene Roddenberry it is not Star Trek -- Kobi 21:50, 31 Oct 2004 (CET)
    • Although Nietzsche was mentioned in Borderland, this article is full of non-canon stuff. Delete. Davok 10:58, 1 Nov 2004 (CET)
    • the fact aside that this has nothing to do with trek, "Nietzschean" isn't even a word. Delete. --kamagurka 12:30, 1 Nov 2004 (CET)

Gihlan't'aehn and USS Gihlan (October 28th, 2004)

  • Star Trek: The Magazine is not canon. It should be noted that USS Gihlan has been deleted before, as USS Gih'lan (although not by the same author). Content was not considered canonical, and thus not valid for inclusion. This still holds. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:57, Oct 21, 2004 (CEST)

Mahan class (October 28th, 2004)

Reflective nebula (October 28th, 2004)

  • An incorrectly named duplicate of Reflection nebula. According the the WikiPedia article, "reflection" is correct. -- Mjwilco 01:36, 18 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Creators of artificial intelligence (October 28th, 2004)

Celsius (October 28th, 2004)

  • Nothing links to it, and it's dead end. Any info that could be on the page isn't really related to Trek. -- Mjwilco 20:57, 16 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • Celsius should go. Kelvin should take its place, with a reference to the relationship between C and K. Kelvin is used in ST, after all. -- (Toddas 16:57, 17 Oct 2004 (CEST))
      • Celsius is used all the time, too. invalid point. if C goes, K should go, too, unless it's prominently mentioned somewhere; for example, when Kes made the tea boil under tuvok's supervision (VGR: Cold Fire), the doctor later states she elevated his body temperature by 39° C; but is that enough to have an article about the unit? IMHO, no. only if the unit itself has some story point in Trek, an article should be created (say a couple of officers debate why starfleet uses C and not F). correct me if i got something wrong, i'm new here. --kamagurka 22:25, 28 Oct 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:12, Oct 28, 2004 (CEST)~
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 10:32, 2 Nov 2004 (CET)

Alternative Kirk Chronology (August 31st, 2004)

  • first sentence says it all. Someone's personal take on Kirk's career history - original research. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:42, Aug 21, 2004 (CEST)
    • How can Cannon compare to on screen facts. It is based of the 100 year parallel between "Journey to Babel", and "Sarek" (2266). The Calendars you use suggest that the bottle of Romulan Ale 2283 is the best way to figure the date of TOS. But that is a Romulan Date. At least it is a side article rather then posted as a part of the Main article. If there are any Cannon Error's post them on the Discussion page for the Article. TOSrules 15:53, Aug 20, 2004 (PST)
      • I suggest you do it the other way around and adress your problems or suggestions regarding the original article at that article's talk page. If you've made some good discoveries, they should be included in the original article. This page should be deleted. -- Redge | Talk 01:17, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. Non-canon, no references, no wiki links - I think that's all that's wrong with it! -- MiChaos 01:06, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST).
    • I suppose there is some reason to support a deletion. But this is Cannon, in that it is all based off on screen evidence (IE not from books, or games). I'd like to hear more of what other members think. TOSrules | Talk 17:54, 20 Aug 2004 (PST)
    • Delete it. The title is inconsistent with our naming conventions. Problems with the generally accepted timeline should be addressed at Talk:Timeline or Talk:James T. Kirk, but a lot of the "revelations" here seem based on speculation in in conflict with previously accepted facts. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:32, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. Seems to be unconfirmed speculation. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Is there something more emphatic than just deleting it that we can do to this ? Hit it with a big stick and then delete it. Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • I'm not saying keep it, but TOSrules has a point. If this site is totally based of on-screen facts, then there's no more reason to place TWoK in 2385 than 2379. -User:2 of 4
      • Except possibly for a bottle of Romulan ale dated 2283. --64.132.0.250
      • What part of the word Romulan Ale do you not understand? That is Irrelevant evidence as to the date of ST2. At least my Chronology gives 15 years between Space Seed and ST2 as where yours give 18 years. --TOSrules 01:48, 27 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 02:33, Aug 31, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:48, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Isodesium (August 31st, 2004)

  • A page I created a while ago before I was familiar with MA's canon policy. Something from Star Trek: Voyager: Elite Force -- MiChaos 01:14, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST).
    • Delete. -- Redge | Talk 01:17, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleeeete. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • Delete, the author has already said it's non-canon. Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • It is Cannon, just not generally excepted --TOSrules 01:48, 27 Aug 2004 (CEST) I did not intend to vote on this one, misplaced
      • I don't see where Memory_Alpha:Canon_Policy says that video games can be accepted as canon. Alex Peckover 09:33, Aug 27, 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 02:33, Aug 31, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:48, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The Geometry Of Subspace (August 31st, 2004)

  • non-canon speculation. -- Cid Highwind 21:04, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete -- MiChaos 23:16, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST).
    • Delete. -- Redge | Talk 23:56, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • Delete. -- Balok 03:39, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. Ottens 11:49, 28 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Keep. It seem like a great explanation to me. -- Krevaner 20:28, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Sometimes whether to delete something isn't about how well written it is, but about whether it is part of the canon Trek universe. It could make all the sense in the world (within the context of the Trek universe), but if it wasn't from a canon source, at least for now, it doesn't belong here. -- Balok 02:21, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 02:33, Aug 31, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:48, 31 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Excalibur class (August 31st, 2004)

Incursion class (August 31st, 2004)

Evolution of the Klingon Species (August 25th, 2004)

  • entirely based in non-canon. This information has been removed before from the main Klingon article. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:53, Aug 18, 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete Ryan123450 21:34, 18 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Destroy it. it's not even one of the better theories i've heard explaining Klingon heads. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:47, 19 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Non-canon. Remove. Ottens 11:42, 19 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Yuck, delete it. Alex Peckover 14:35, Aug 20, 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Redge | Talk 01:37, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • get rid of it! -- Kobi 11:55, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • OK, so it is non-canon, BUT has anyone found a better explanation for the smooth brow/rough forehead inconsistencies ? Until Paramount can come up with a better one than "We don't explain it to outsiders, " I vote it stays. -- Otter 03:02, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • Well this article is named contrary to our naming conventions, it contains completely non-canon data that is disallowed by our policy. If something is not specified in a canon source, we are not allowed to simply "make something up." Besides, you don't have the ability to vote in this discussion until you've actually edited a few articles. Sorry. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 03:18, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete it with a passion. Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:00, Aug 25, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:31, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Warp Drive Theory (August 25th, 2004)

  • Someone's personal theory on how warp drive works. Original research, non-canon. -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:23, Aug 19, 2004 (CEST)
    • Not the first of that user. Too bad, I rather like these articles. But since it's not canon, Delete. -- Redge | Talk 01:37, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Yuck, delete. Alex Peckover 20:41, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • I would hardly say yuck with regards to the article. It seems pretty smart to me. For all we know it could be the background explanation for how Warp Drive works to the Trek writers. For that reason alone I vote to KEEP it! Or at least post this information on the talk page of Warp drive. -- Krevaner 21:03, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • It's a mixture of non-canon speculation and sheer fantasy. This cannot be integrated in to main Warp drive page without references at the very least, so my vote stands. Alex Peckover 21:13, Aug 23, 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:00, Aug 25, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived -- Redge | Talk 13:31, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Kolarus II (August 22nd, 2004)

  • No info about that planet. Planet referred to is Kolarus III, which already has an article. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. -- Redge | Talk 14:24, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Delete. Ottens 15:54, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Archived. -- Redge | Talk 23:58, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Pages created by Ottens on August 7th (August 18th, 2004)

Class pages

  • Aventeur class
  • Cochrane class
  • Declaration class
  • Galileo class
  • Horizon class
  • Mann class
  • Marshall class
  • Messier class
  • Tritium class
  • Verne class
  • Ranger class
  • Baton Rouge class

Vessel pages

  • USS Mann
  • USS Leonides
  • USS Endurance
  • USS Poseidon
  • USS Patton
  • USS Hannibal
  • USS Ranger
  • USS Bastion
  • USS Explorer
  • USS Orleans
  • USS Sal'koth
  • USS Indomitable
  • USS Coronado
  • USS Solzhenitzyn
  • USS Spann
  • USS Decatur
  • USS Duncan
  • USS Halsey
  • USS Glasgow
  • USS Savannah
  • USS Moscow
  • USS Tehran
  • Delete all with extreme prejudice. RPGs and the like are most certainly not canon. I consider this vandalism, and find it extremely disturbing coming from a long-standing user, familiar with our rules and policies. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:23, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
    • I think my opinions on non-canon sources for Starships have been made well clear. Delete them all. Alex Peckover 21:35, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
      • Perhaps this should go on a more general discussion page concerning canon: on each of this pages, it is clearly stated that these starships have been mentioned in a certain book (most are from the Spaceflight Chronology), and we could even put a "non-canon" notice on it, or something. But this Spaceflight Chronology is an official reference book, and was used by the writers of TOS and TNG as a reference source. I would say we keep this information, add a note at the beginning of the article, similar to the "meta trek" note that was invented some time ago, and let people decide for their own whether the information is canon enough or not... Ottens 12:22, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • According to the Memory Alpha:Canon Policy, most of these articles (with the exception of those mentioned in the FASA RPG) would be considered "meta trek". Ottens 12:29, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
        • Well, we consider the Star Fleet Technical Manual, Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual, and the Star Trek Encyclopedia as "official references" when it comes to writing articles here.. but I don't think we can go so far as to shoehorn Spaceflight Chronology into it, there are two problems with that: 1) Rick Sternbach was a senior contributor to TNG's staff when he wrote the TNG TM. His writings when he was simply a newbie illustrator on TMP is certainly less relevant. 2) The second problem is that, except for the few times when a novel or a piece of art department work has referenced it, there has been no official production attention paid to this manual, most importantly little or no canon references. I belive I stated this previously, during canon policy discussions. We also nixed the idea of purely non-canon articles existing at present on MA. Unless there's any canon references to any of those ships, current policy on MA is that they cannot posess their own article page. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 14:42, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
        • Couldn't these articles fall under the category of "Meta Trek" than? They have something to do with Trek, and it would expand the database of we'd allow such articles to be included. There may be people who are looking for such, and as I said, they can decide for their own whether its canon enough or not. Ottens 16:01, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
          • No, they couldn't. Are they episodes? Movies? Officially endorsed books or comics? No. That is what 'meta-Trek' articles are. We had this discussion when the Mackensie Calhoun article came up, as I'm sure Captainmike will recall and that reasoning was rejected then, as well. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:44, Aug 8, 2004 (CEST)
          • Oh, all right. These articles should be deleted than. Apoligies for including them. Ottens 12:37, 9 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • This discussion (perhaps including the list) should be archived, after which this page itself can be listed for immediate deletion. I'd do it myself, but I'm calling it for today. -- Redge | Talk 01:38, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • Archived. -- Redge | Talk 14:32, 22 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Hope class (August 18th, 2004)

  • Page is inaccurate. Pasteur was Olympic-class, only an early version of the plaque stated this class designation, as stated in the Encyclopedia. -- Michael Warren | Talk 18:17, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
    • Agreed, delete it. Alex Peckover 21:37, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
    • Perhaps we should keep the page, and report in it the plaque was a mistake. Seeing as how it has been on screen, it is canon. -- Redge 23:09, 7 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • Except it wasn't on screen. An early preproduction version of the plaque (seen, I believe, in the documentary "Journey's End") stated it. It is worthy of a footnote in the USS Pasteur article, but not an article on its own, as it isn't canonical. The Pasteur's dedication plaque on screen gave the correct class designation. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:15, Aug 7, 2004 (CEST)
        • Agreed. Add it as a footnote to the Pasteur class page. I thought the incorrect Hope Class plaque was on screen, which is apparently not true. Ottens 12:19, 8 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 13:56, Aug 18, 2004 (CEST)
      • Archived. -- Redge | Talk 01:25, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Timeline of Human Interstellar Dawn (August 14th, 2004)

  • Lengthy non-canon timeline, most of the information might be from the Eugenic Wars novels (?). Delete. -- Cid Highwind 11:17, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I'd like to know where that information is from. Ottens 12:04, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • It seems that there are canon facts on that page. They should be moved to Human History. Ottens 12:06, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I say move them, then Delete. -- Redge | Talk 17:42, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Kill this page. It's title is non-standard, and there is fairly little canon information witihn. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:47, 13 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I say keep the page. Its got really great info and it explains a lot. All it needs is to be wikified. Krevaner 01:11, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • that would be all fine and good, but this is a very poorly researched, bulk of non-canon text. Almost none of this information is derived from any televised or filmed Star Trek, it seems to be devised solely by the author. If you can locate any references to the dates, so-called "facts" and other info in the article, then add it to human History, but this article is entirely incompatible with our canon policy --Captain Mike K. Bartel 01:15, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Maybe somebody should make a page for Star Trek speculation and put this information on the page. There has already been a lot of theories posted on this site that were good explanations for the Trek inconsistencies. -- Krevaner 01:20, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Keep the article. It gives a great background. -- Thinker-X 09:01, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • i'm still glad the delete votes outnumber the 'keep' votes at this point, since this article is in a basic violation of canon policy. Great background that is completely false is not really a great asset to a reference source. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 10:59, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • Some of you might need to be reminded of our Canon Policy. This policy clearly states which resources are valid and which are invalid - and I still don't see much valid information in that article. If you want to discuss the policy, please use Memory Alpha talk:Canon Policy, but for the moment, this policy has to be adhered to. -- Cid Highwind 11:16, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Screw the policy. I vote to keep the Timeline of Human Interstellar Dawn. Numero 11:19, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • Before this gets out of hand... According to our Deletion Policy, both Numero and Thinker-X are not allowed to vote in this case (Reason: less than 15 non-minor article edits). If these accounts were created for just this purpose - please don't do it again. If they were not, my apologies for the wrong suspicions. -- Cid Highwind 11:30, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Everyone who wants to keep that page should make use of the print function of Memory Alpha. Canon details (there were two if I'm not mistaken) should be moved to the respective articles. Then someone with the power should hit delete because it does contain nothing but speculation -- Kobi 12:16, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Unless no canon source can be given, this page should be deleted. Ottens 12:42, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • I suggest the page be deleted quickly, before this discussion gets out of hand. Not counting Numero and Thinker-X: Keep: 1 Delete: 5 -- Redge | Talk 14:24, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • KEEP IT. Its the best article on the entire website. If its deleted it will just make Memory Alpha poorer site. So once again, KEEP IT, KEEP IT, KEEP IT, KEEP IT, KEEP IT. -- Dinktank 14:50, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
  • Apparently it is not only non-canon, but also a possible copyright infringement (see talk page of that article). I will list this article here as well, please vote if you agree. -- Cid Highwind 15:00, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Could we wrap this up? -- Redge | Talk 15:05, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • It's both a copyvio and totally non-canon. Those new members who instantly popped up, voting to keep this are to be ignored IMO. This articles violated MA's canon policy, and should be deleted. Ottens 15:17, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
    • Deleted as copyright infringement (see: Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements). -- Cid Highwind 15:47, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
      • I'm glad that's over. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:20, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
        • You and me both. I suggest we keep this discussion here untill the discussion around creating an archive is resolved. -- Redge | Talk 17:18, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Archived. -- Redge | Talk 01:25, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement