This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Poodle".
- 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
- Say no more. Delete, quickly. 31dot 23:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not even sure that a poodle has been shown, much less referred to by name. Closest I can think of is in ENT: "Two Days and Two Nights", but that ain't a poodle, and it obviously ain't from Earth, as this stub claims all poodles are. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. --Jörg 06:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral. I have a distinct recollection of some reference to a Poodle in Star Trek, but I can't remember specifically what it was, nor can I find any citation for it online. I don't recommend deletion, nor do I recommend its deferment. I simply wanted to raise the possibility that perhaps, maybe, possibly there was a Poodle mentioned in Star Trek. The bigger question is, should we have a MA page for any noun that has a script reference. We have a page for "parrot" after all. If the answer is "yes", then I vote to hold off on the delete. If the answer is "no", then I vote for immediate deletion. Either way, this page needs to be expanded, as its less then a stub as it stands. And to czechout... I'm pretty sure all Poodles would have genetic originations on Earth... elseways, it wouldn't be a Poodle.Hossrex 08:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, Hossrex, please take the time to read through the deletion policy to understand it. It appears tht you don't really comprehend it based on your comments above. In short, this article does not meet the requirements for an immediate delete. Now, having said that, yes, there is the possibility of something making an appearance, but unless a citation for that "possibility" is realized, then you must ignore that. Worst comes to worst, we can undelete an article if a citation is later found for something. In short, in all cases for a deletion, should there be a solid reference, the deletion should be held off, and if not, the item should be removed. So, your comment really says nothing at all, while giving the impression that you had something to say. -- Sulfur 09:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I gave an opinion. An opinion doesn't require that the person opining have a definitive answer to a given question. I said what I thought, then gave two answers based on two separate possibilities. Do I know exactly whats going through this wiki moderators mind at any given moment? No. Of course I don't. Hence why I gave two possibilities. If you don't like them, feel free to ignore them. Thats perfectly acceptable. I'm under no pretense this is a democracy. I was however under the impression that this was a wiki, which welcomes user input, which it what I gave. That said, why on Earth would you phrase your response to my opinion in the matter which you have? Its comically unprofessional, and entirely unwarranted. I behave myself (why do I have to say that so often here?), and I don't take any of this too seriously, so I find all of this slightly funny... but its getting somewhat odd how often user opinions seem to be unwelcome on this wiki.Hossrex 10:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, and on the schedule set out in the deletion policy. The burden of proof is on proving it was in Trek, not proving that it wasn't not in Trek. If after the prescribed number of days no one can prove it was in canon, delete it, if they can, keep it. If at a later time it is found to be in canon, we can follow the undeletion procedure. Not brain surgery. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. So far I remember no Trek reference. – Tom 10:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Admin resolution Edit
- Deleted. -- Sulfur 03:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)