Forum icon  ForumsTen Forward → Memory Alpha article on Wikipedia (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.

Memory alpha article in wikipedia is for deletion. Any input is welcome at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Memory_Alpha -- 16:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And probably not necessary either. --Alan 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it might be. It looks to me like the decision for deletion passed, and now they are trying to overturn it. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The one argument that seems not to have been made anywhere over there in four VfD's is that MA is notable because Star Trek production staff have used it for reference/source material. I know MA has info on this, and hopefully the sources can be made available for citing on Wikipedia. The deletion arguments are "non-notable" and "unsourced". If a MA person familiar with these points is able to contribute this info to the Wikipedia article, as well as to the discussions, such should counter those arguments. So far, the only counter has been that there's "no consensus". --TribbleFurSuit 17:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
While I for one know that production people have used MA, I also know that that really can't be cited in a manner that WP would find sufficient. Otherwise, you apparently haven't read the deletion review posted above, which already includes several of the points you speak of. --Alan 17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I've already tried arguing the sourcing issue in the past, when the MA article was up for deletion before. There's a contingent on Wikipedia that seems hell-bent on deleting things as "non-notable"; the MA article survived four RfDs, and yet people keep renominating it for deletion. With that mindset, it's simply a matter of time before it gets deleted. At this point, I think that nothing short of a full article in a scholarly journal about MA would suffice as a "non-trivial" source... and perhaps even that wouldn't be enough, since it would only be a single source. ;) -- Renegade54 18:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)