Talk:Chroniton

This article was nominated for deletion on January 2, 2008. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Treknobabble.

Anyone got a picture of chronitons? --The Moneycruncher 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prod/deletion

I don't know any other way of expressing my concerns on the deletion of this article except for editing it with this message. Please do not delete this entry. It may not have any real world relevance, but it has alot of science fiction relevance. Chronitons are mentioned any many if not all science fiction shows, books, movies, etc. Many people, like me, have a need for knowledge, and an insatiable curiosity to know the meaning of many words and facts that may or may not have real world relevance. I personally think, and hope I am not the only one who thinks, that all knowledge is precious. I agree that some things do need to be removed, but not this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.169.33 (talk • contribs)

I just looked up this article for reference in comparing science fiction physics to real world, and believe it is of value. I'm glad I managed to access it before its deletion, and I also support it being kept and augmented to meet Wikipedia standards. --130.64.60.21 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fayenatic london has deprodded the article, citing in part "support from anons on talk page." However, given that this talk page is those editors', that doesn't seem to hold much water. Anyway, it'll go through AfD soon enough. --EEMIV (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is dubious. On the other hand, sci-fi fans are likely to encounter words like "positron", "tachyon", and "chroniton" without any indication as to whether the respective particle is real, hypothetical, or fantastic. It's worthwhile for Wikipedia to describe chronitons at least to the extent that the layperson will not mistake them for non-fiction. This article simply may not be the best way to do that. If it cannot be rewritten to stand on its own it should probably be thrown in with the other Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles. --Uncuddly (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

After coming across it, I've learned and remembered a few things about Star Trek. I say do not delete this article. --Hirak 99 (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]