Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dabo (Star Trek): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:21, 14 November 2007

Dabo (Star Trek)

Delete - prod removed by SPA without comment. No real-world significance to this fictional game and no reliable sources establish its notability. The notability of the Star Trek franchise does not impart notability to every fictional element of it. Otto4711 19:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real-world notability, no out-of-universe information. Pagrashtak 19:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to new List of games in Star Trek, see existing proposal suggested last month at WikiProject Star Trek. For future reference, it would be appreciated if deletion proposers would notify relevant WikiProjects. If immediate action is required, just redirect to Ferengi as was done in the case of Tongo (Star Trek) - leaving the categorisation - as this preserves the edit history and nav links for the benefit of a better future merge. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the list of games would also require reliable sources that establish the independent notability of its constituent items as well as the concept itself. The game doesn't become any more notable for being on a list of other non-notable games (the only notable ST game that comes to mind is 3-D chess and that has real-world notability in addition to its in-universe significance). See for instance the similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek in which the collection of non-notable items was itself not notable. Otto4711 19:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a new list of Star Trek games -- see commment at the AfD for Kadis-Kot. Pinball22 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is it possible (and desirable) to redirect to the Memory Alpha article? I've never seen a redirect to an outside site, but it seems like that might be the most helpful option if someone actually wants to read about this. --Explodicle 21:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We could link from an existing article, but we shouldn't inter-wiki redirect. Pagrashtak 21:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I agree we should delete.--Explodicle 01:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. While it does not warrent its own article, it would still be useful. ffm 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Delete''' No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. [[User:Jay32183|Jay32183]] 21:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Merge''' per above. While it does not warrent its own article, it would still be useful. '''[[User:Firefoxman|ff]]<font color="darkgreen">[[User talk:Firefoxman|m]]</font>''' 00:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''': Notable; [[WP:NOT#Bureaucracy|Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy]]; [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper|Wikipedia is not paper]]; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--[[User:Neverpitch|Neverpitch]] 02:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)