This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Titus Oleet".
- 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
- Comment. It looks like this has languished around for awhile (last post on talk page is from 2006) so this is a good find. :) We do have other similar articles (and even an entire category) about unreferenced material, such as Sector 21290 and Sector 21185 which were not seen in canon but were still created. There was even a brief deletion discussion about 21185 in which it was suggested to make the article in its current state. I'm not sure if the issue is that there is no evidence provided other than the text of the article itself, or something else, but it would be nice to have some corroboration. I think I'm leaning Keep unless no evidence comes up that this person was in the book in question.--31dot 22:59, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - My reason for putting it here isn't to bring it up for deletion but to bring attention to it as someone clearly thought it was worth possibly deleting. — Morder (talk) 02:36, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - as long as such an article is handled as "Real World" (meaning written from a production POV, no incoming links from in-universe parts of in-universe articles), and can be verified (access to published scripts or other production material), I wouldn't mind keeping this and similar other articles. It is information about something created during an official Trek production, after all. -- Cid Highwind 10:50, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - My vote will be for keeping this page provided there is a minor rewrite so it more closely resembles the aforementioned pages, and a citable source. It's my opinion that this type of information (created props that may not have been seen/fully seen on screen) improves the quality and depth of the project, as long as they are marked as unreferenced material (in this case with a bg note and category). I'm just hoping someone took pictures of the book before the exhibit closed, or some other similar source can be found. - Archduk3:talk 10:56, December 5, 2009 (UTC)