This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Harod I, Harod II, Harod III, Exo I and Exo II".

  • 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 Edit

No specific reference to these planets. Harod IV was mentioned, but none of the others.--31dot 22:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion Edit

  • Delete Can't think of a thing these are good for especially since they don't say anything other than this is the 3rd planet in this system and even the system is pointless...I think the system page which lists their planets is more than enough. :) — Morder 22:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see why pages about any planets should be deleted. Isn't Memory-Alpha trying to create articles about all of the planets. I can't help it if nothing is known about them. Anyways, thanks for leading me to the discussion page, and I wouldn't like them deleted. --Starbase 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - We're not trying to make articles about all the planets - just about all the planets seen or heard on screen. That's what memory-alpha is - a canon wiki. — Morder 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment What's Exo III without the other planets in it's system? What's Harod IV without a I, II, or III if they are known to exist. Is there any need to have them deleted? I added links to pages that should contain links to the Exo planets. --Starbase 22:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Heh, there's no proof they exist at all. We know planets can be destroyed, or for some reason they just explode. So you're just assuming they exist without any proof - which is why this site limits it's requirements to that which was seen/heard on screen. :) — Morder 22:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - We don't create articles for (or links to) planets that haven't been directly referenced on-screen in one form or another. This is a decision that was made long ago. In a system article, if a planet like Harod IV was mentioned, then we infer that Harod I, II, and III must exist, and denote that in the planet listing, but we don't create links for those planets. See Archer system for an example (there are plenty of other examples as well... see Category:Star systems). -- Renegade54 22:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment You may be right. Before any decisions are made we should see if the planets appear in any episodes Harod I-II-III may be mentioned in the episode. TNG: "The Perfect Mate", someone should watch the episode first. --Starbase 23:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - No need to watch it. It's not mentioned in the script. Only Harod IV. — Morder 23:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete- Okay, I don't really care if it gets deleted or not.
  • Delete - I see no reason to keep articles that aren't even mentioned. Maybe the people of that system just liked the number IV and skipped straight to that one. -- DhaliaUnsung 01:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. We've had this discussion before. A couple times. It always ends the same way... --- Jaz 03:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - It can be deleted --Starbase 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin resolution Edit

As the author no longer objects to deletion, I've deleted them as unmentioned planets.--31dot 20:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)