This is the Archive of the Memory Alpha:Deletion archive featuring articles from the Deletion pages after it has been resolved by deletion of the page in subject during the year 2005.

Deletion Pages: Votes for deletion, Images for deletion, Possible copyright infringements, Pages for immediate deletion

See also: Deletion log, Votes for undeletion

Votes for deletionEdit

Temp pagesEdit


Still necessary for something? -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Still necessary for something? -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The Horizon/TempEdit

The Horizon/Temp 
Still necessary for something? -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Still necessary for something? -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, quick, fast, and in a hurry. --From Andoria with Love 21:15, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know, I created a couple of months ago (and kinda forgot about it), but it still seems better (uses more canonical sources, better design) than the actual Klingonese page. I'd like to see some more consensus/discussion on the Klingonese talk page first.--Tim Thomason 01:18, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, you can Delete it now. I've already applied most of the text to the Klingonese page.--Tim Thomason 22:06, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Alan del Beccio 12:02, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted/Archived --Alan del Beccio 07:09, 1 Jan 2006 (UTC)

USS Horizon/TempEdit

USS Horizon/Temp 
Still necessary for something? -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


DidYouKnow:temp" : Still necessary for something? -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Still necessary for something? -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


DidYouKnow/temp" : Still necessary for something? -- Cid Highwind 13:37, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Various templatesEdit


We already have Template:Inuse. -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Near-duplicate of Template:Inuse. Might be necessary on Wikipedia, but not here. -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Redirects to one of the disambiguation templates. Unnecessary. -- Cid Highwind 11:52, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Federation fashion trendsEdit

Federation fashion trends
  • Tagged for deletion on 11/28/05 but did not appear to make it to this page for voting. --Alan del Beccio 09:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • since you didn't nominate it Alan, is there a vote implied by your comment here or are you just listing the named file? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Rename. There seems to be merit to this concept of creating a "top page" for clothing on Star Trek. (whether it be an "in-universe" examination of fashions, or a "meta Trek/ real life point of view" eye on the costumes of Star Trek).
  • RE: Mike, initially I was just placing it here because it had been tagged for deletion for a week without being placed here; obviously something needed to be done with it, and since I never said either way my feelings on it, it was a 'no vote'. But to play devils advocate and list why I think it was tagged for deletion in such a way to support a vote, I would say that it is clearly written in the wrong point of view, and as well, we would need to find a way to differentiate it from the potential redundancy that exists between ideas covered on this topic that are also, or also could or should be referenced in Starfleet uniforms. I guess we need to decide if this is going to be a production article or "in universe" article. --Alan del Beccio 18:58, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Are we even really sure that some of these trends (i.e. the hair) are the same for all Federation members? Besides that, I really don't see the need for this article. I vote for delete. --From Andoria with Love 11:55, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Since no initiative has been taken on this issue, nor do I really see an explicit reference to "keep" this specific page, it has been deleted. If a page appears at a later date in the perspective Mike spoke of above, we can always refer to the archive and restore this page for a merge, 'if necessary,' otherwise this has been here for more enough time for someone to have done something with it. Obviously no one has. --Alan del Beccio 11:48, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Trima-Lota SectorEdit

Trima-Lota Sector
  • Delete unless cited. If any of this was canon, i'd love to know the source, but it seems to be a collection of references strung together without being linked as such in an episode or movie. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:04, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently, the original contributor blanked the page - might be an immediate delete in this case? Anyway, what was there was in no way valid information, so delete. -- Cid Highwind 15:49, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Elias Vaughn Edit

  • Elias Vaughn - Uncanon novel material - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 17:07, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • This would be a simple merge/integration into the novel series that the character is based from. (And not to split hairs, but I'm quite sure that "uncanon" is not a word ;) --Alan del Beccio 18:20, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • (Force of habit, I've used the term for quite sometime) A merge seems good to me. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 18:21, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. Non-canon. :-P Roar 18:47, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, faux-canon. — THOR =/\= 19:16, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha:Denial of administratorship Edit

Memory Alpha:Denial of administratorship 
This page seems to have been created purely out of spite during an attempted edit war. Regardless, I don't believe that Memory Alpha currently needs such a page, as we have a relatively limited number of administrators, and if we ever need to remove an administrator, it would probably should start at least with some discussion first. We could probably just "ban" an administrator if they start vandalizing, which would make the whole point of this page unnecessary.--Tim Thomason 23:36, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, if an admin gets out of line, I'm sure there's a way to remove their privelages, or, as you said, they can always be banned. Then again, the page itself may be a valid place for other users to post their complaints about an admin or ask for their removal -- but that can also be done at some place like Ten Forward. Then, of course, there's the whole reason it was actually created, which is, pardon the expression, a joke. (I feel like being blunt tonight.) Anyways, yeah, delete. --From Andoria with Love 23:59, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the creation of this is hardly a mature way to deal with things. --Alan del Beccio 00:43, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - If the reason for creating this page might be dodgy, the page itself is something that has been missing here. It exists at Wikipedia too and there's also the possibility to de-admin someone by voting. That nothing (important) happened up to now is no reason to create it not. --Memory 02:34, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a policy page created without actually being policy, so it should not simply be kept. If you think this page is needed, we definitely have to discuss the procedure first. Meanwhile, Ten Forward was good enough to voice concerns in the last two years. -- Cid Highwind 04:08, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

Flashtrek Edit

Non-canon, unofficial game; actually, I'm not sure if this should be merged with games or deleted outright. --From Andoria with Love 03:13, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Lore's Box-suit & Lore's box-sock Edit

Lore's Box-suit/Lore's box-sock 
Nonsensical contributions by new user, perhaps test pages. Might be considered vandalistic if more are added after warning. -- Cid Highwind 16:43, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't think Lore's suit was ever referred to as such in the episodes (and his socks probably have no relevance whatsoever).--Tim Thomason 19:59, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Though, of course, we see Lore's clothes, these are not valid. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 21:39, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, for Surak's sake, delete. --From Andoria with Love 21:49, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Two more of that sort were added, so I will delete all of them as purely vandalistic. Possible objections to that action can go here or on Ten Forward. -- Cid Highwind 11:03, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Elite Force redirects Edit

Star Trek Voyager Elite Force and Star Trek Elite Force 2 
These redirects were originally articles, created with the likely belief that the articles did not already exist. Anyway, I'm not sure if we should delete them or not, so I'll post them here for discussion. I, personally, think they should be deleted due to their origin and the fact that the titles are incorrect. --From Andoria with Love 11:58, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Um... they're already redirects... or are you saying they are just redirects, and we shouldn't delete them because of that? I don't think that's a valid reason to support (or oppose) deletion. Redirects must also "prove" their worthiness and usefulness just like a regular article. If they are useless or unneeded, then they don't belong here. Knowhatimean? :) --From Andoria with Love 19:43, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Tales of the Xindi War Edit

Tales of the Xindi War
  • Made up novel -- the user who created it added a list of other "wishful thinking" novel titles he'd like to see -- but I somehow doubt Pocket is planning five more ENT books in the last half of '06, having released only a handful this year. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Delete, if we're sure it's made up. --From Andoria with Love 03:16, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Memory 02:39, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Alan del Beccio 07:19, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Unicorn Edit

The article itself says the Nimbus III creatures weren't called unicorns and unless there is an actual reference somewhere this article would not be appropriate for MA.--Tim Thomason 18:25, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Mirror universe timelineEdit

Mirror universe timeline 
fan fiction. Might be a candidate for immediate deletion, I think we had that same content in the past, but I'm not sure. -- Cid Highwind 13:40, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ted DeVita Edit

Ted DeVita 
Personally, I think we should just delete this immeidiately, but I'll be nice and post it here. As it states in the article, the subject has no connection to Trek except that he attended a convention. That hardly qualifies for an article here. --From Andoria with Love 22:07, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • If by "hardly qualifies," you mean "doesn't qualify," then I agree. Delete. -Platypus Man | Talk 23:01, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • definetly delete. --Starchild 02:19, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- 13:28, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - irrelevant to Trek. - Hayter 17:53, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Broik 17:55, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Racism against Vulcans Edit

Racism against Vulcans
Not only is it written in the wrong point of view, the topic should really be included in a subsection of the more simply titled racism. --Alan del Beccio 08:17, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I figured as much, but wasn't sure what to do with it. In any case, it gave me some food for thought, as I'd never considered this idea before. Weyoun 08:26, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Roar 08:49, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 09:00, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • merge or delete -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Delete. --MstrControl talk | contrib. 01:48, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge - It seems to me that much of this information is valuable, but should be included in the racism article. --Fenian 18:52, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. I've actually noticed this myself on Voyager, because they constantly treat him as if there's something wrong with him instead of just having a different way of life. Kind of like with Ferengi, except not done for the sake of slapstick or bad puns. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 17:40, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this could be turned into an article about Racism in Star Trek or Racism and Star Trek or something similar. It could cover the way Gene Roddenberry intentionally added minorities and of course the famous interracial kiss with Kirk & Uhura, things like how Nichelle Nichols nearly quit because of harrassment, and of course other facets such as the racism against Vulcans notion. Dunno if that idea appeals to other people, it might be too meta. Ben Sisqo 00:23, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into racism, and then delete this. --Starchild 02:19, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow, I wouldn't have thought this would be discussed for so long. Well, I guess it could be merged, but it would only have to be based on things that we know were intended as racism against Vulcans (i.e., Stiles vs. Spock in "Balance of Terror", humans against Vulcans in Star Trek: Enterprise) and not simply observations made by viewers. That qualifies as speculation, which, of course, is not permitted here. --From Andoria with Love 04:44, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • At the moment I do not have the time available to give this article the attention required to salvage it. Nevertheless, I suggest that someone rewrites this in the proper pov for the page merge (which seems to be the consensus). --Alan del Beccio 12:54, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't know if it can be written in the proper POV; the entire article is about the systemic bias against Vulcans in the writing staff. I think we should delete and be rid of it. --Broik 17:55, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted and merged into Racism by Gvsualan. --From Andoria with Love 10:04, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Template:PrometheusClassStarships Edit

Cardassian philosophy Edit

I'm not at all sure there is enough material here to merit its own article. We've recently folded several other similar articles into the main species page (Ferengi among others). I think it works much better in the main page and have already put the content there. Without significant expansion, and I'm not sure how much it would need, I think we can do without this one. Logan 5 21:12, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge with Cardassian and delete this. --Memory 23:17, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we should cite the page before we merge it. --Alan del Beccio 05:56, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, someone had already merged it without citations, but Vedek Dukat added most and I added the missing link (Tekeny Ghemor talked about some of that stuff) so now this page is merged and ready to be deleted. Ben Sisqo 00:10, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, now that it's been merged. --Starchild 02:19, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted now that information has been merged (or, more accurately, copied and pasted). --From Andoria with Love 04:48, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived --Alan del Beccio 13:29, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew language Edit

Hebrew language

There are no Trek references to this, so it really doesn't belong here. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral I remeber Dr. Crusher making a refrence to the exodus of the isrealites once. don't remember when though. Hebrew langauge was not mentioned but it was implied. Also the Gene Rodenbary was Jewish. Since Hebrew is the language of the jews it might be relevant. Tobyk777 00:13, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete If the Jewish people were mentioned, then it still doesnt logically follow to write about their language -- just the people (if "culture X" was mentioned, the first logical step is to write an article about "culture X" --not "culture X's language" (especially if the language itself wasn't mentioned at all!)
  • Delete, that is unless someone can come up with a reference to the Hebrew Language directly, or find dialog in Hebrew. --TOSrules 03:11, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 09:00, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --MstrControl talk | contrib. 01:45, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Alan del Beccio 06:15, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived --Alan del Beccio 13:29, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

abbrev. Edit

Delete. Logan 5 01:43, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Stub categoriesEdit

Category:Memory Alpha production stubs & Category:Memory Alpha performer stubs 
Not discussed, and I strongly believe there was consensus not to create a category tree for stubs. -- Cid Highwind 21:57, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it seems one was created by accident (the performer category), but thanks for bringing it to my attention because I think dividing stubs is a great idea. I only oppose the episode template (the argument for which was that it would automatically update an equivalent version of my/our duty roster) because (1) the duty roster's already been created, whereas we'd have to update every episode to apply the template and (2) I don't think the category tree should be as specific as the duty roster is (e.g. sub-divided to the point of invdividual seasons). But the production stub category should stay. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 22:59, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both: if there is no current project to improve a category of articles, we don't need to subdivide the stub categories. If the project of Vedek Dukat is turned into an official MA project, then such a category might be appropriate, but in this case his user subpage could also be moved to MA namespace. --Memory 23:17, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Keep the production one, although I'd prefer a more all-inclusive term like behind-the-scenes if it's going to include performers. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment Sorry if this was unclear, but since there's still the active policy of discussing categories first, I simply see no valid reason to keep any of these. We shouldn't start the practice of creating undiscussed category pages, then try to keep them alive by voting against their deletion. If you think these categories are useful, please bring them up for discussion first. If you think the policy needs to be changed, start a discussion about that. -- Cid Highwind 02:16, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Interestingly, the actual category stub was created nearly a year ago by Captainmike, but the category was never added, although I'm not sure why. I think Cid is right about agreeing upon categories, although considering the damage has been done and the votes so far were based around the idea itself rather than creation policy, we might as well turn this into a vote about the category. Therefore, I say keep or delete {{stub-production}} and {{stub-performer}} when you delete the categories. Weyoun 02:36, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Weyoun, the actual stub messages are and always were independent of their categorization. There's no problem with having different stub messages with the same category. -- Cid Highwind 11:53, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Cid. Also, I've noticed that in the cases of "unagreed upon categories", such admins as Darkhorizon simply deleted them forgoing this process and noted in the log that they were deleted because they should have never been created or that the "category was not agreed upon." --Alan del Beccio 19:48, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • That's true. I think these should have been deleted, but since they weren't we might as well keep the viable one. As for having a category stub without a category... um, what's the point? So the person can read that it's about a performer/production person? Weyoun 08:29, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Defense sail (12-05-05)Edit

Defense sail
Not cited, nor do I recall this term ever being used on DS9 to descibe what it is this article is attempting to descibe. If anything, this should just be incorporated into the design of Deep Space 9. --Alan del Beccio 12:25, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, they were just called pylons. Delete or move to pylons (if that is the official term). --From Andoria with Love 19:39, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nope... Unless it's a really obscure alternate-name kind of reference or something that came from the technical manual. Weyoun 04:58, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or rewrite: I recall that the sails were seen in use during the DS9 pilot, "Emissary", and again in further detail "The Way of the Warrior". Though indeed they did not mention them in the episode verbally, there is a website which speculates (probably correctly) that John Eaves created the upgrades to DS9's weaponry that were used in "The Way of the Warrior", but did not design the original weapons used in the series pilot. Although his original designs were not all used, most of them were accepted and some modified to better fit. They had to construct closeups of the pylon/sails to display the new weapons and of all the upgrades, only two emplacements were seen on-screen being used. The page's source is speculative to me and it called the sails in question "weapons sails" as well as "defense sails". However, the article page for Deep Space Nine links to the "defense sail" article.
At this time, the only information I can find on these modifications has been found in FSD: Starship Concept Art: Arming Deep Space Nine. And seeing as the sources aren't very well defined or confirmed, the article here should be rewritten, merged, or just deleted. The link from the DS9 article should be modified as well. generally, I say it needs to be rewritten. Deletion should be a last option. --MKSuleth 02:03, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Simply put, if the term defense sail was not used, then it really isn't the appropriate term to have cited here. Additionally, this so-called "defense sail" was also the location of the tractor beam emitter, if I recall correctly, in "Invasive Procedures", and most probably other early episodes. If anything, it should just be incorporated into the Deep Space 9 article and deleted once and for all. --Alan del Beccio 13:21, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • Merged with Deep Space 9, as most of the information on the page was already contained on the DS9 page and deleted. --Alan del Beccio 08:47, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Boson Edit

Not cited, no episodes or other directly referenced terms link to the page. --Alan del Beccio 08:23, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: This thing's been here for a few months. Can the lack of citation or episode links really be grounds for deletion? Perhaps simply adding some pna's (one for citation and one for possible inaccuracy) would do? If not, and if no refs can be found, then I will vote for delete. --From Andoria with Love 00:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the fact that it has gone months without citation is proof enough it shouldn't be here. If you haven't noticed already, there have already been several other related particles deleted lately that have been lingering just as long. --Alan del Beccio 13:05, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hutet class Edit

Hutet class 
Non-canon article about a ship from a game with only the ship's measurements. It could also be merged into the game article itself (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - Dominion Wars), although there's not really anything relevant to merge. --From Andoria with Love 11:06, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - allow pages for things like this and it opens the doors for more non-canon entries. If there was a fair bit of info I'd say merge, but there's not. - Hayter 12:06, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Definitely - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:17, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - --Fenian 18:20, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I haven't read any of the above, but I vote Merge with whatever video game this was referenced in, Dominion Wars (i guess) and delete. --Alan del Beccio 13:16, 19 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Interphase (disambiguation) (11-28-05) Edit

Interphase (disambiguation)
Only Interphase is a correct disambiguation target, both other meanings belong into a "see also" section and have been placed there on all relevant articles. This page is now obsolete. -- Cid Highwind 13:32, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
delete Logan 5 18:49, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cid Highwind 13:18, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

LCARS pages Edit

Memory Alpha:LCARSource, LCARS:Encounter at Farpoint
Not sure why these were even created, and they're probably candidates for immediate deletion; the latter is the script for the episode, which I trust is not something we write articles on, and the user probably intends/intended to add more. Isn't that a copyright violation, too? --From Andoria with Love 04:34, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Keep. (1) We're about everything related to Star Trek (2) If we were truly put up to scrutiny on the fair use image issue, we'd be so dead already (3) Paramount doesn't sue people over this Mourn 04:37, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
True, we are about everything related to Star Trek -- as long as that "everything" is an original writing and in encyclopedic form, and who knows how many other things I could thing of if I wasn't tired. Also, it sounds like you need to read some of our copyright policies, boyo. ;) --From Andoria with Love 04:42, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
What about captain's logs and the fact that you use direct wording in your articles (not in quotation marks or attributed to the character much less the studio)? That's plagiarizing just as much. If you wanted to be truly original, you'd make up your own wording for that. I too am tired or I'd cite a couple examples. Also, the audio clips are longer than thirty seconds, which is the legal limit for sampling. But the point is that Paramount doesn't care so why not? It would be great and easy for people to access.Mourn 04:45, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
As Mike has already explained to you, we can use snippets of episodes and dialogue for review purposes. We don't copy and paste entire works, as that is not part of our mandate. Also, please do not remove other people's comments, unless it is vandalism or unrelated to a topic. --From Andoria with Love 04:51, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I didn't the wiki did. Sorry Mourn 04:54, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry Mourn -- you are ineligible to vote. To date, excepting the above articles, you have made approximately zero useful, non-trivial edits. If you wish to take part in the community in this manner, you have to meaningfully contribute first (i would consider suggesting a change or discussing an article before creating it as a meaningful contribution, or simply editing an article in an acceptable manner accordin to Memory Alpha:Policies and guidelines). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
These are copyright violations also, contain unagreed upon namespaces, unagreed categories: delete delete delete -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
(on the topic of our other legal use of copyrighted samples, i again point out that you are off topic -- we are not discussing that policy here, we are discussing the deletions of the above articles. Please stay on topic. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
Delete, I completely agree with the reasoning. Comment: As the creator of these articles, Mourn is allowed to vote in this case. -- Cid Highwind 19:42, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Indeed, it's a copyright violation, regardless of whether "other people do it". On that topic, however, if anyone wants access to scripts, my user page has links to a couple places where they can be found, as well as a handy method for searching through scripts for a specific term or phrase. Weyoun 19:48, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, considering the scripts explicitly state in those text files that keep circulate around the net that they aren't meant to be reproduced. Not sure who started it or leaked them or whatever, but MA isn't about stuff like that. Besides, it's one of the few things a google search will do just as easily as anything MA could provide. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Moons of Pluto Edit

Moons of Pluto 
A page for the two moons found orbiting Pluto earlier this year. Never referenced on Star Trek and there's not really any content here, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 03:46, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the deletion, however the information about Pluto's moon sould been added to the page itself (with a little more than just the astonomical numbers). --MstrControl 18:49, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As they've never been referenced, we can't really add anymore than the numbers. - User:AJHalliwell
Delete. --Broik 04:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages (for only two articles) ((11-28-05))Edit

Brig (disambiguation), Ghost (disambiguation), Herbert (disambiguation), Lal (disambiguation), Loomis (disambiguation), Martinez (disambiguation), North Star (disambiguation), Tiburon (disambiguation), Tsunkatse (disambiguation) 
These disambiguation pages list only two pages, and the article at the non-disambiguated title links to the other one. Thus, the disambiguation pages are unnecessary (or should otherwise be moved to the non-disambiguated title themselves, if considered necessary). -- Cid Highwind 15:26, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I should note that when you factor in production staff, Martinez encomasses three people (Martinez, Terri Martinez (Starfleet) and namesake Terri Martinez) -- if you count the term "lal", that makes three for Lal -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
    • Comment - I'm taking back Martinez for the moment. The third disambiguation needs to be formatted properly, but is there. However, there is no third page for Lal, Lal just redirects to Lal and thus doesn't need to be disambiguated. I also don't think that a third page for "lal" needs to be created in the future. Any further votes? -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • All but one deleted. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Valdore Class Edit

Valdore Class
was copied from Valdore type, then edited (including speculation, meta-information etc.). The proper title is Valdore type, so this one should be deleted. -- Cid Highwind 17:19, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Melee weapon Edit

Melee weapon
Not sure what this is about, but it isn't cited, nor does it really seem appropriate here. --Alan del Beccio 12:17, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Dispite melee weapons being those that are hand controlled (Like the Bat'leth, to my present knowledge), there is no mention of 'melee weapons' in general. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:18, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Wasn't this already deleted before? Anyway, delete. --From Andoria with Love 19:35, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Pion Edit

Non-Trek content; not cited; no pages link to it that might indicate a Trek source. --Alan del Beccio 08:45, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Trek source, either. Unless someone can provide one, delete (and make sure to remove any links to that page first). -- Cid Highwind 15:57, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Federation-Dominion Alliance Edit

Federation-Dominion Alliance
Not canon. --FuturamaGuy 22:09, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. I vote to Keep. - 22:33, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote to Keep. -Weyoun 47 22:36, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-canon. -- Cid Highwind 22:45, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not only non-canon, but also no logical conclusion one could reach from canon sources. --Fenian 22:58, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Immediate delete and block. It's obvious that this is the same person who was stirring trouble up before. He's trying to find gray areas where it's quasi-vandalistic but legit enough to cause trouble. Weyoun 23:09, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete quick, fast and in a hurry. --From Andoria with Love 05:35, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Federation and the Dominion signed a peace treaty, not an alliance... :S Ottens 12:13, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • I will not stand for these... UNJUST accusations!!! I merely wished to contribute to your impressive database. After all, if there could be a Federation-Klingon alliance, a Federation-Romulan alliance, even a Federation-Cardassian alliance, why not one between the Federation and the Dominion? there is a reference to such an event in "Endgame". May you have the blessing of the Founders. -Weyoun 47 16:53, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Alan del Beccio 12:03, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Frankenstein Fleet Edit

"Frankenstein Fleet" No canon references to the term, and the article includes speculation from the Deep Space Nine Tech Manual in claiming that these ships were hastily 'kitbashed' for the War. There is no canon evidence to support that notion. We simply don't know anything about these ship types. -- Harry 13:49, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Federation-Talarian Conflict Edit

Federation-Talarian Conflict
  • I cannot believe that this is the "official" title of the conflict-- besides it more or less just duplicates (in less detail) what is more concisely descibed in Galen border conflict. In fact, I think a comment on the talk page, by EtaPiscium, says it all: "The episode "Suddenly Human" makes no reference to any conflict other than the "Galen border conflict", which it states lasted three years. There is no evidence the Federation-Talarian conflict went beyond that." --FuturamaGuy 18:05, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Delete. -- Harry 10:24, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Delete - Logan 5 21:49, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
If it really is the case, then we don't need a seperate article. However, this article has been in existance for over one year, and its title seems to be an accurate description of the event (conflict between Federation and Talarians), so I vote to Redirect instead of completely deleting it. -- Cid Highwind 21:56, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Delete. The Galen border conflict were the sole and only conflicts cited in reference to the Talarians. This article otherwise duplicates information referenced in the appropriate article.--Fenian 23:05, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:38, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Linux Edit

No Trek significance I'm aware of; seems like someone's bad idea of a joke to me. --From Andoria with Love 20:15, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:45, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The user who wrote this article is apparently confusing the Trek universe with reality. Linux was apparently the program used by the production crew to design the LCARS interface system and other similar items used during productions. However, it is the not an official term used in the Trek universe. Therefore, if it can be rewritten in the form of production/background info, it should be able to stay. --From Andoria with Love 03:55, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite. I agree with Shran. If the information is correct, the article could be rewritten from a behind-the-scenes POV, similar to Macintosh. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I guess if someone rewrites it, then it can stay. -Platypus Man | Talk 12:19, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is still in major need of being rewritten. It should only say what it is and how it was used in Star Trek productions, and maybe a brief bit on how it operates. If it stays in its current condition, I hold that it should be deleted. --From Andoria with Love 01:46, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Freaking delete it then. Instead of griping about it, how about showing me an example of a standard for new entries?
    • Why don't you just remove or limit the page to Star Trek production information? That might be a good start. --Alan del Beccio 06:19, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This information can easily be incorporated into pages that might otherwise deal with production information, and does not seem - at least to me - to warrant its own page. --Fenian 00:41, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Memory Alpha:Which Trek is your favorite? Edit

Memory Alpha:Which Trek is your favorite? 
Memory Alpha is not a place for idle discussion. - obviously including polls. Delete. -- Cid Highwind 10:16, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • No kidding. If you want to know which Trek is someone's favorite, either ask them or go onto a forum where that is what you do. Delete -Platypus Man | Talk 12:19, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 13:26, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whoever made this page must have been a n00b. --Sloan 14:31, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Alan del Beccio 06:15, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Plot typeEdit

Plot type 
Essentially unused, orphaned (except from discussion in TF archive). According to that discussion, was considered outside the scope of MA by some, and I agree. This also extends to the subpages linked on Plot type: Curable disease plot, First contact plot, Power corrupts plot. -- Cid Highwind 12:56, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Element with no Trek relevance (11-1-05) Edit

No Trek relevance, I recommend that the page's content be merged with Johnsonium and deleted. --Defiant | Talk 23:06, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: I really don't care if these are kept one way or another. On the one hand, the symbol was used, but with another element. On the other, as you said, there is absolutely no trek relevance (the info is already pretty much on the Johnsonium article, albeit not the atomic number. If Radium, is going to go then I suggest deleting similar articles:
  • Delete --Memory 19:37, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, although we I think "Cesium" may have, so I'll check that, and "Einsteinium" is a real element? I'd've guessed it was from the "Rascals" chart. I wonder if it was named after anyone. - AJHalliwell 22:02, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, considering a background note would be more than sufficient on the "canon" element's page. Coke 19:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (I could have sworn I already voted on this subject...) --From Andoria with Love 20:07, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Save, although some of the information is a bit erroneous (reference to World War II), this is a useful article with a link to "Real World" connections to Star Trek. It would be like deleting the signifigance treknology has had on real technology (like communicators to cellphones).--Mike Nobody 04:00, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I changed my mind, and am pretty sure that all of these element pages. I created them because Mendelevium already existed, albeit erroneously. Now I realize that the pages are small enough, and any information would fit into the canon "element"'s page. I orphaned all of the elements and changed the links on their "source" element pages to point to Wikipedia, with some help from Weyoun.--Tim Thomason 04:12, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Quark (particle) (11-1-05) Edit

Sure, it's a valid scientific concept, but when was it ever referenced? Quark's name is an obvious reference to the word, but not to the subatomic particle. Also, we're not Wikipedia; we don't need all that information about a concept that I'm pretty sure was never even referenced on Trek. None of the pages that link to it have any reference, other than a second-hand reference, such as the fact that a meson, a valid article, has quarks in it. Delete. -Platypus Man | Talk 18:36, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

"Captain Janeway" (10-23-05)Edit

I created this because a new user had linked to it on their userpage, but I don't think it falls under any of the valid reasons for having a redirect. When s/he changes the link, I'd suggest deleting it. (In retrospect I probably should have simply noted it on the talk page, which I did after I created it.) Weyoun 04:15, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete- There's no "Captain Kirk" or "Captain Picard" or anything like that. -Platypus Man | Talk 02:07, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Alan del Beccio 07:58, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted -- too vague, could refer to one of 3 Janeways. --Alan del Beccio 09:55, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

USS Constellation (NCC-1017) Crew (10-23-05)Edit

Almost completely non-canon. I think someone here needs an explanation of the rules... --T smitts 06:14, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Feel free. :) This goes beyond the realm and the original necessity of these various personnel pages. Two named canon crewmembers does not deserve their own page of "personnel". --Alan del Beccio 06:29, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Moved to USS Constellation personnel as the correct naming convention -- recommend either deleting or leaving USS Constellation personnel as a redirect to USS Constellation. I could move the non-canon data to the source article also. (I don't think any of the non-canon data there is licensed or official -- its a fan created mod?) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:08, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Could be from "The Brave and the Bold" by Keith RA DeCandido

Book references (I think) (10-22-05)Edit

Abramsville, Aghi, Alshanai Rift, Battlecruiser Vengeance, Blockader, Blue Fire, Blue lights, Clouded Game, Eminiar Fifth Column arachnid
  • Not canon. --Alan del Beccio 06:49, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I meant to add them here earlier and forgot, but I think these and the personnel page above are yet another example of why it's bad form to say we are an "encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek" when... well, we're not. :-P I can see that policy changing in the near future though. Weyoun 07:17, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • We have well established Memory Alpha:Canon policy (as well as an FAQ) that is quite accessable to members and visitors alike. In fact, a link to that is included on {{welcome-anon}} messages and on the aforementioned front page. We are an "encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek" -- for all that is canon. Not to mention the fact that if someone is new here and has any questions that are not answered in the above and related reference links, there are plenty of knowledgeable people here to answer those questions. --Alan del Beccio 07:54, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, some or all of these come from licensed media such as novels -- so they should be listed under their own novels (i.e. "encyclopedia and reference for everything related to Star Trek" -- but you arent allowed to create a new article for it unless its canon -- Battlecruiser Vengeance for example could be expanded on in The Final Reflection, so this data isnt "prohibited" its "misplaced") -- in accordance, delete these please. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 13:37, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • No canon, quicky Delete (that is, the two that weren't merged) --Alan del Beccio 07:58, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Transcendence (10-22-05)Edit

  • MA does not catalog articles about unlicensed or illegally published fan-fiction material. The only company ever licensed to publish original, non-reprinted Trek fiction in the past ten years has been Pocket Books and they did not publish a novel of this name, by this author, in any of their series. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:46, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's a poster who explained the whole thing on the talk page. There's no reason to be so delete-happy. This is why people are afraid to post things. - User:Keras (added by Alan del Beccio; Please sign your posts when leaving comments.)
    • Comment, this is the first I've heard of "people" being afraid to post things here. Is there a chat forum somewhere on the web that is covering this? To reply to your comment: people are so "delete-happy" here because people start vague pages that other people cannot confirm as legitimate or canon and rather than letting the questionable page marinate for weeks on end unnoticed, it gets posted here -- forcing people to either fix it or trash it. It is, by far, the best way to expose questionable content to a trial by jury, otherwise known as "taking action" or "housekeeping." Obviously there has been a lot of "talk" on the talk page about it, and somebody evidently has the book, but the fact of the matter is -- no one has made any effort beyond "talking" to actually correct the page to prove to the community that it is indeed legitimate in one form or another. However, if indeed what Mike said in the talk page is true and this is an "unlicensed or illegally published fan-fiction material" then it shouldn't be here. That much is clear in our charter of what we currently deem as acceptable content for this website. --Alan del Beccio 00:48, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, you're right about one thing; I've spent so much time arguing that I haven't actually fixed the post. Well, that ends now. I'm going to dig out my copy of the book and fix the page, because you're absolutly right, I should be doing that instead of trying to get other people to do it. I'll do what I can for now, and finish fixing it over the next day or so. However, if I'm going to go to the effort of fixing it, at least take it off the deletion list. -Keras
        • "Pages listed here will be removed after 5 days, unless voted otherwise." --Alan del Beccio 07:26, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
          • Well, one vote for and one against. Where does that leave us?
            • Since you can't vote in this section (according to policy: user "has been in existence at least one week before the listing", unless you are the original author which you apparently are not), this leaves us with only votes for deletion. I'm reserving my own vote for the moment, but unless you can give us something like an ISBN number (as was requested somewhere), I can't see a good reason to keep. -- Cid Highwind 20:41, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, illegally published, interesting. The strict deletion policy is what keeps MA running so smoothly, why would someone be afraid to post something if the can cite it and it's not already here? Don't take it offensively if other users wikify or fix the grammar of an article you write, teamwork is the point of a wiki. Delete. Although (I don't know if wiki allows ST novel pages) this should be on the Internet somewhere, it's an interesting story. (the copyright infringement, not the actual novel's plot line) - AJHalliwell 22:02, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

To be fair, it was legally published and then there was a contract dispute that made it illegal and got it pulled. 23:22, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • If that is the case, then it should have a ISBN in whatever edition was originally released prior to the dispute. --Alan del Beccio 00:22, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Have you ever tried to find an ISBN for a book that's not out anymore? It's not easy, but I'm tryingKeras 01:02, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
And what I am saying is that whoever has this information, either an original version of the book, or some other verifable source on these various claims about contract disputes this and book retractions that must be able to prove an ISBN or again, a link or source backing up all these claims about this novel. --Alan del Beccio 01:32, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Content from talk pageEdit

Well, searches on AOL, Google, Yahoo and Askjeeves all can't find anything on Transcendence Star Trek or Sal Lagonia. Nor did searches on eBay, or even my local library. If someone could provide any link proving this exists, I apologize. If not, this will be nominated for deletion. - AJHalliwell 03:51, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • As best as I can tell you are correct. The name Sal Lagonia only comes up on a couple searches in Google, and they appear to be not related to Trek. In fact he appears to be a lawyer with an outdated website. ;) --Alan del Beccio 04:17, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The book exsists, I've read it, but some of the info was really wrong. I'll make an updated post if you want to fix the problem.

I've also done the searches. The book hasn't come up, though there are about a million Lagonias out there, at least two of which are authors, but I can't find them as writing any other Star Trek books (or even this one for that matter).

  • MA does not catalog articles about unlicensed or illegally published fan-fiction material. The only company ever licensed to publish original, non-reprinted Trek fiction in the past ten years has been Pocket Books and they did not publish a novel of this name, by this author, in any of their series. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:40, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I hate to post anything here because I'm always afraid it will be deleted, but I'm just sick of seeing this debate, because it's obvious none of you know what the real story is.

First of all, the book is real. I have a copy right now sitting in front of me just for the sake of this message. It's a lovely little green planet with an excelsior class ship on the cover, and the friendly little white letters on the bottom clearly state that it is based on Star Trek... Based, not nessisarily a Trek book.

See, it wasn't published by pocket books and was taken off the shelves shortly after it was published because there were some problems with their contract with Pocket books. I have the feeling none of you can find the book online because it's old news that no one really cares about anymore.

Now, there's three things you can do about this.

1. You can get someone to fix the page, since there's a few problems (I'll go into this later)

2. You can leave it as is with a warning about it's content

3. You can erase it. I don't know why everyone gets so erase-happy here, but it's an option

I wouldn't really care if it was erased, but for completeness sake, it may as well stay.

Now, I told you I saw some problems. First of all, I'm looking at the title page, and the publishing date is different than the main page here. There's also some little problems, for instance, there are more than three new laws in the novel. In fact, she says two and a half laws in one long paniced sentence towards the end.

Anyway, I really don't want to be the one to fix the page, but it seems like I'm the only one with a copy of the book in front of them. I'll await your decission on that.

Wow, I didn't mean to cause such a stir. I also had no idea about all of that, I just thought it was a pretty good book that no one mentioned yet. I also am sorry if I got some details wrong, but it's been a long time. You are right about that sentence, I remember that. Touching moment
  • It would really be nice if people signed their posts (--~~~~) so that other readers could indentify who is saying what. Anyway, all I see here is a lot of talk, and no action being taken on the page. If people want to complain about the community being "delete-happy", fine. But if someone has the book, then by all means, they should fill in the page with the correct information so that the rest of us can see what is otherwise being withheld and apparently causing us to stir. --Alan del Beccio 00:49, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'd rather the poster above me fixed it, because even though I have a copy, I have no idea where it is, and what I posted was to the best of my knowledge. I can add the additional laws he spoke of, but other than that, he should really be fixing it. -Keras
Citing sourceEdit

One of the main reasons an article could be reduced or deleted is if the contributor does not accurately Cite their sources -- and this article is uncited, numerous archivists on Memory Alpha have been unable to find an appropriate source for this publication.

All books that are legally published for sale in the US have an "ISBN" number -- no such number has been supplied for this purpose in this article.

Illegal publishing efforts performed underground are really not applicable to a reference about canon Star Trek -- please do not respond without reading that definition, or our Memory Alpha:Policies and guidelines -- I myself know of illegally published material that has prompted lawsuits from Paramount, so I can tell how seriously they take this matter -- and they have a right to ban publications of their copyrighted concepts because they don't want to have characters they own debased (for example, depictions of sex or illegitimate parentage by a copyrighted character might detract from them using that character in a future legal production) -- and this website has no desire to violate any copyright in that manner, so please do not try to convince us to.

MA as a community has been accused of being "deletion happy" -- this is partially true because i will happily delete, in accordance with our policy, any articles created solely to catalog data about illegally published novel and reference works that do not have Paramount's approval.

Memory Alpha is a serious reference work, and we expect that contributors will be able to verify their writing can be cited to a valid resource. Again, please do not respond without reading the appropriate help pages dealing with why articles need to be cited.

Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 10:46, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

No offense, but I came here because this looked like a fun place to do research and share ideas, and a place where I could become part of this community. I'm disappointed that there are just too many people who are so strict about things that it drains all the fun.

All-canon is great and all, but so very incomplete. Conjecture is a source, you know, and I'm getting tired of all the bickering that goes into what can truely be considered 'official' and what cannot.

Look, books aren't canon anyway, so why are they listed on this site? Simple; They allow for the free flowing of ideas. If a writer sees something he likes from a book, he may take it and run with it. Since books aren't canon, he doesn't have to stay within their guidlines, and can use them less as a source and more of a brainstorming jump-point.

Perhaps a writer will see this article, become curious, find and read the book and write a sequal based on the insperation he finds there. Perhaps not. Either way, would it kill you to be a little more respectfull of other people's posts? They take time to write, and we write them in order to contribute to the community, not as some plot to overthrow you as the sultan of canon Keras 20:48, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

No offense taken -- some people just don't understand what it means to moderate a website which has a lot of hits and therefore requires control of its community of users posting data which is outside of the site's copyright allowances -- we all contribute with the hopes that we won't get the site in legal trouble for breaking acopyright license (there is sometimes controversy over the internet and copyrights you know). I'm sorry you've been unable to find an appropriate way to contribute so far.
You know, I've contributed to dozens if not hundreds of novels, reference works, comics games and collectibles articles on this site, most all of them deal with some degree of non-canon data. There hasn't been a great degree of bickering over what is "unofficial" you know -- "official" publications are all registered with the Library of Congress -- unofficial ones are usually not.
A couple of my contributions about Ships of the Star Fleet and the USS Enterprise Officer's Manual were unfortunately removed. This is because they were published underground, on the sly, and were circulated against the wishes of Paramount's licensing offices -- so there was no applicable way to cite the source -- an appropriate ISBN number.
I'm not going to spend the next five days making a grand case of a deletion proceding about a book that was not published in America by Paramount Pictures, the legal owners of Star Trek and franchise. I'm going to move on to another article that is more clearly ready to be accepted by, you got it, our site's policy and community. Just for kicks, I'm thinking of sprucing up some articles that deal exclusively with (legally published) non-canon sources, like the ongoing adventures of Wesley Crusher and Robin Lefler. Feel free to help. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:57, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, I don't hold you personally responsable for this, but after the trouble this has put me through, I think I'm done contributing. I'll stick around for research purposes, though.
Also, to be honest, as much as I like Lefler, Wesley was... well, one of my least favorite characters. I didn't see the reason for Lefler's crush on him to be honest. She was the beautiful Ashley Judd and he was... well... really boring. I'd have picked a better characterKeras 22:23, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Do you like Star Trek: New Frontier?
I thought it was a good idea, but it was a little... corney. Not in that good corney way that TOS captured our hearts, but corney in the "May the Great Bird of the Galaxy Roost on Your Planet" way.
I did read it all, though, for some reason. I was quite fond of some of the characters from TNG, one of the reasons I picked Transcendence up when I saw it. Keras 01:02, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

RPG Ships (10-20-05)Edit

Uss audacious, USS Abbott

RPG ship. Advertisement, which I might add has added this page to many Wikis. - AJHalliwell 20:35, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC) (Update for Abbott:) Seems to be a RPG ship as well, same circumstances. - AJHalliwell 00:37, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - No argument, delete it. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 20:48, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and change main page, which currently states that we're about "everything related to Star Trek" and is probably why things like this keep cropping up. Weyoun 03:37, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, definetly--Starchild 03:46, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Alan del Beccio 04:00, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted' -- non-canon, abbreviated delete. --Alan del Beccio 00:35, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Igi Yamora (10-19-05)Edit

Igi Yamora 
No sources, and I've never heard of this guy. This is apparently taken from the Trekmania Chronology, an"Unofficial Timeline of Space Travel and Starfleet", meaning it's non-canon. --From Andoria with Love 11:03, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- non-canon (like I really need to lk to the word ;). -Alan del Beccio 16:59, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - AJHalliwell 22:02, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and again I think it's because our homepage says "everything related to Star Trek". Weyoun 04:17, 18 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Relationships Edit

Data & Jean-Luc Picard, Jean-Luc Picard & William T. Riker, William T. Riker & Deanna Troi and their redirects 
We don't single articles created solely for describing a relationship; also, there's nothing here that can't be found on their individual character pages (once they're reverted, anyway). No consensus has been reached at the discussion on Ten Forward, and I for one think this is a very bad idea. Nobody's going to be looking for a specific relationship; they'll be looking for a specific character, from which they will read on their relationships. Besides, there are far too many relationships to create, unless you're will to create Jonathan Archer & Charles Tucker, Jonathan Archer & T'Pol, Benjamin Sisko & Kira Nerys, Kira Nerys & Odo, Tom Paris & B'Elanna Torres, Geordi La Forge & Data, and so on and so forth. --From Andoria with Love 20:08, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - nobody said that we create such articles for every "couple", it's just to embank that articles like William T. Riker are so long that they load eternally. It also prevents from duplication. The readers are directed to the new pages by the links. --Memory 21:22, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. See ten forward for my take on why the argument about duplicate information is pure laziness. But to Memory's arguments: Why can't people just use the table of contents to navigate the page? I don't want to click 500 times to see information about a single person. :P --Schrei 21:34, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep see Ten Forward for my reasoning. Jaf 23:25, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • Delete and revert. While a good idea in theory, some of the relationships sections for individual characters could probably be written in a different POV for each character... for instance, the Will Riker/Deanna Troi information is focused more on Will's perspective and actions, rather than Deanna's. The information I'd expect to see on an ideal page about Deanna would be written differently, focusing more on her POV. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 05:45, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it might be best not to handle this whole thing as a VfD-situation. What it boils down to is to either move information from or back to the main article, both of which could be done without decision on this page even in the future. That means we have to find a consensus about these pages in general first, and this page is not the place to do so. So my suggestion is to postpone this voting. If that finds no support, I vote to delete and revert those pages, especially for the reasons SmokeDetector stated. -- Cid Highwind 08:53, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Restore original articles and delete. Agreed, they should be written from the perspective of Picard OR Riker OR Troi and therefore should not contain the same content as the creation of these pages forces upon the reader. --Alan del Beccio 22:40, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • This issue was resolved a while ago, with the decision made to restore the original articles. --From Andoria with Love 12:24, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Except that someone forgot to remerge Troi and Riker back into Riker -- that was a pain. Anyway, Deleted. --Alan del Beccio 16:51, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Speculatory Cruiser types Template Edit

Template:HeavyCruiserTypeClasses, Template:LightCruiserTypeClasses, Template:ExplorerTypeClasses.

This seems to be all of them. A majority, if not all of this, seems to be speculation. I can't think of any (canon, noncanonly these refs are everywhere) refs to these, and all of starfleets ships mission are of "exploration". On other notes, I can say for a fact we've never learned what kind of ships some are, just because their mentioning has been so tiny. Neptune was only mentioned in passing as having old ugly captain's chairs. - AJHalliwell 20:53, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Go ahead and Delete: These are much more speculatory than the StarshipClass templates and I should've known something was up when I made the pages (it stemmed from an idea to show which Starship replaced another, e.g. Nova replaced Oberth, and Excelsior replaced Constitution, which in itself is speculation). Sorry for the delayed response as I've been sick lately, maybe I've been sick longer than I thought, as I didn't realize the errors in my ways. Oh, and that is all of them, I think.--Tim Thomason 09:18, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Alan del Beccio 08:11, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Moved from talk pageEdit

Is there really a canon source for Heavy Cruiser types? Particularly for Akira and Sovereign? Has the term ever even been used? - IP User

  • Agreed, there are no sources that I am aware of that confirm the Sovereign class OR Negh'Var class as being heavy cruisers. I'm sure much of the same can be said about the other templated based on the same premise. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • According to both the Akira-class, Sovereign class, and Negh'Var class pages, it lists them as heavy cruisers (under Type: in the sidebar). If the information is incorrect then the pages and the template should be changed accordingly. Memory Alpha was my one and only source when I created this and similar templates, and I don't doubt that some of the information is incorrect.--Tim Thomason 20:22, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
      • Lots of pages need to be cleaned up for things like that, width, height, Type, Phaser class... I'm nominating this, and the others for deletion, and putting it on here cause if I put it on the page it'll appear on all the template pages; and I seem to remember templates used to be put on talk pages anyway. - AJHalliwell 20:39, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Deleted --Alan del Beccio 08:05, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thaddius Deming Edit

Thaddius Deming

(yawn) Have we not deleted this before? Is it possible this is just misspelled, and we have deleted it before? Non canon, from the Star Trek: Armada game. Delete and/or merge. - AJHalliwell 00:53, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Pirk Edit

Not canon. --Alan del Beccio 00:01, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — THOR =/\= 00:34, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-canon 2 day quickie delete. --Alan del Beccio 08:05, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Old log filesEdit

Note:As this about files in the Memory Alpha: namespace related to the administration, normal deletion rules might not apply. This is more a discussion.

These five seem to be old log files from before the server move. We now have Special:Log for all these. Do we want to keep the old stuff or delete it? -- Cid Highwind 10:40, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm all for cleaning house. --Alan del Beccio 06:43, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I deleted all of these pages but noticed that several still link to a lot of other internal pages. I intended to change them, but I am not sure to what, so the remaining blue links need to either have their links removed from other pages or replaced with the updated-replacement links on other those pages. --Alan del Beccio 06:30, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see some more comments regarding the deletion of these anyway - some other admins, perhaps? After all, these are log files, so we should definitely agree on what to do... -- Cid Highwind 08:26, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • To be fair, it has been 5 days AND very few of us/them seem to partake in much voting these it categories, featured articles or what have ya...--Alan del Beccio 08:31, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure how they'd be useful, is there a feeling we should be able to peruse lists of files deleted or protected years ago? it might be nice to archive somewhere, i guess -- are we required to record vandalism and the like -- thats probably a good portion of the the block and protection info (as well as a majority of deletions). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I dont see any real reason to keep a list of individuals and IPs we've blocked from a year or year + a half ago, its really only the last 6 to 9 months that are important, if anyone is really keeping track of that. --Alan del Beccio 02:16, 21 Sep 2005 (EDT)
  • Delete - I also don't see a reason to keep these (and honestly didn't know they existed) There's an "edit page", I'm fairly new, so I'm wondering: back in the day, you had to manually log each deleted page? - AJHalliwell 00:49, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC)

USS Masaryk Edit

USS Masaryk 
Currently listed as being a candidate for deletion, but I don't see it here, so I went and added it. The info looks non-canon, which is probably why Mike wanted it deleted, as it should be. --From Andoria with Love 05:17, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete/Deleted -- clearly not canon. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

William Jones Edit

William Jones

I wanna see immiediet delete, as the article even says "no connection to Star trek whatsoever" but as everyone else in his little band were Star Trek actors, is it possible we're just missing something with him? Otherwise, yeah, delete. -AJHalliwell 11:23, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Like you said, it even says it has no connection. -Platypus Man | Talk 12:27, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 13:04, 3 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete It even says it has no relevence. The aouthor of this is just asking for it to be deleted. Tobyk777 01:53, 4 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Redirects Edit

Waist extractor; Airshuttle; The Cost of Living; Vengeance Factor; Snarkian; Investigation; Deathwish; Maddox;

Several redirects created by User:Vedek Dukat. I've read some recent issues over redirects to eliminate typos, so shouldn't these be deleted also? Surely using wrong redirects to episodes only encourages laziness and errors to occur more frequently. --Defiant | Talk 23:06, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Diplomacy and law and Maddox, delete Diplomacy and Laws. The latter are legitimate redirects since capitalization and last names are both considered legitimate redirects. I can find examples to cite if you want. I don't know about Deathwish, since it seems legitimate to me, but you might have a different interpretation of what's allowed... Vedek Dukat 02:11, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed with above. Maddox is okay to keep, so is Diplomacy and law -- Delete the rest. --Alan del Beccio 19:39, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Tribute Bands (10-5-05) Edit

Tribute Bands
This isn't a band from the Trek universe, it's about some band influenced by the Trek universe. This is less relevant than "The Sunspots", at least they had actors from the Trek universe in the band, and we didnt even keep that. --Alan del Beccio 07:36, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to say because I don't understand the page. Maybe it's intended to be that way like beauty is in the eye of the beerholder. I think from the name of the page that it might have the potential for as much legitimacy as Star Trek parodies. In its current state, though... Speedy delete per the #5 criterion: " Very short pages with little or no definition or context." --Schrei 07:56, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Alan del Beccio 06:35, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Admiral Jones Edit

Jones (Admiral) and the resulting redirect Admiral Jones
  • Can't recall a canon source, not much to go by in the article -- its hardly readable. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:08, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Both seem to be from a novel, definitly not from any canon source. - AJHalliwell 02:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete quick, fast, and in a hurry. Obviously non-canon. --From Andoria with Love 03:17, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makon 05:03, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't even make out what it's supposed to be about. Thought there was something about Janeway, or Picard. I dono. the article is so vauge I can't even figure out what it was trying to say. Tobyk777 23:37, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted--Alan del Beccio 08:02, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Google (10-1-05)Edit

Moved from Immediate Deletions, where I think it should be


The search engine. Not quite an ad or spam, but still it should be deleted. Immediately, I might add. -Platypus Man | Talk 21:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Vedek Dukat 21:09, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to "website directory" Tough Little Ship 21:11, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Trim down and move, as it is all background information it certainly doesn't get it's own page. (See:"Jewish" dispute) - AJHalliwell 21:36, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Google is never mentioned in Trek, ever. This article exsists just becuase the search engine was used by the writers while devising one episode. At the very most this could be a sentence on the backround info section of the episode. Tobyk777 23:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makon 23:58, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there any question about this? I agree it shoulda been gone a long time ago... Ben Sisqo 09:15, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - background information has been moved to "In a Mirror, Darkly" --Memory 15:06, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted, external links people! --Alan del Beccio 08:02, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

November 2005Edit

Electro-Mechanical Edit

Not cited, nor does it appear to have any links that would produce a valid source. --Alan del Beccio 11:25, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. -- Cid Highwind 16:35, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Loreva Edit

The article is good, but the name is admittedly non-canon. I've moved the appropriate info to Mirror universe people#Klingon Guard at Terok Nor which is where it belongs.--Tim Thomason 18:18, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, and since the info is now where it belongs, we can now delete this article. --From Andoria with Love 19:37, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a redirect. I don't play the card game, nor have I ever, but there's no harm in keeping a valid redirect in case someone creates this page again. Weyoun 07:16, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not an official name, so I don't think it can even stay as a redirect. I could be wrong, though, as I don't beleive that was one of the restrictions to creating redirects. --From Andoria with Love 00:52, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

torr Edit

Not referenced in Trek (a.f.a.i.k.), nor do any pages link to it suggest it might. --Alan del Beccio 22:25, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Constellation class starship Edit

Constellation class starship 
Now a redirect, was article copied from Wikipedia. Should be deleted to remove copyvio from history, is probably not needed as a redirect (orphaned). No deletion message on the page (would hinder redirect functionality), but mentioned on talk page. -- Cid Highwind 11:24, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Bela's Gun Moll and Tough Kid Edit

Bela's Gun Moll and Tough Kid 
Unnamed characters. I've reworded the information and placed it on the newly-created Unnamed Iotians page. I'm not sure if the pages should redirected or merged though.--Tim Thomason 10:37, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy, Jr. Edit

John F. Kennedy, Jr. 
Irrelevant to Star Trek, never mentioned nor appeared. Was a redirect to John F. Kennedy, but this seems entirely inappropriate -- they were two different people -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk



USS Da VinciEdit

USS Da Vinci
  • Admittedly from a non-canon (novels) source, so it is ineligible for having its own article -- its never been mentioned or seen in a film or episode. Previously deleted under correct sp/form "USS da Vinci" -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • If the article was previously deleted, that would qualify it for an immediate deletion, wouldn't it? (I truly can't remember; gotta look it up.) Anyways, merge into whatever SCE novel it came from (if it's not there already) and delete. --From Andoria with Love 10:00, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  • Buh bye --Alan del Beccio 12:10, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Google Edit

Moved from Immediate Deletions, where I think it should be


The search engine. Not quite an ad or spam, but still it should be deleted. Immediately, I might add. -Platypus Man | Talk 21:01, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Vedek Dukat 21:09, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to "website directory" Tough Little Ship 21:11, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Trim down and move, as it is all background information it certainly doesn't get it's own page. (See:"Jewish" dispute) - AJHalliwell 21:36, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Google is never mentioned in Trek, ever. This article exsists just becuase the search engine was used by the writers while devising one episode. At the very most this could be a sentence on the backround info section of the episode. Tobyk777 23:33, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Makon 23:58, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there any question about this? I agree it shoulda been gone a long time ago... Ben Sisqo 09:15, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - background information has been moved to "In a Mirror, Darkly" --Memory 15:06, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted, external links people! --Alan del Beccio 08:02, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Junk DNA Edit

Junk DNA
  • No internal links (initially, have since been added), not cited, no Trek content, not ever referenced in Trek, to my knowledge. Delete --Alan del Beccio 04:21, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 05:01, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete posthaste. --Smith 18:24, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, where is this info from? Tobyk777 18:54, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:41, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Pre-TNG Timeline (9/21/05)Edit

Pre-TNG Timeline

Delete, as it is mostly unneeded information and, more importantly, plagarized from here (well, that's the Google cache, the page is not available). Also, I'd be willing to bet you that all the relevant info is already here. As if that weren't enough, it's not wikified, named correctly, or formatted correctly. -Platypus Man | Talk 05:36, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete quick, fast, and in a hurry! --Shran 09:03, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Cid Highwind 12:46, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • A nice story, but delete.--Smith 14:52, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not an expert on Trek, but when did TNG become the Trek equivalent to the Battle of Yavin? (Everything in Star Wars timelines is measured by how many years before or after the destruction of the death star, since their only calendar is "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.) --Schrei 14:56, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and quick. This should be an imidate deletion canadate, since the whole thing is plaugrized. Tobyk777 03:02, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 04:58, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Alan del Beccio 19:47, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

History of humanoids (9/21/05)Edit

History of humanoids
  • This has gone untouched since its inception, It is written more like a story than an article. It either needs a LOT of work, or needs to have a LOT weeded out of it, as in the text which duplicates Dominion history, Interstellar history and the like. --Alan del Beccio 06:34, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't think there's anything here that can't be found anywhere else. Besides, like you said, it's told more like a story; it's also unformatted & uncited. --Shran 09:22, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-canon speculation. -- Cid Highwind 12:45, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although this is one of the few cases where I say that even though I see some potential, as stated above, the information we could actually use would already be elsewhere. --Schrei 14:53, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Delete From Andoria with Love 06:36, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (invalid vote)

  • Delete Everything in there can be found other places. "Humanoids" is far to general a topic to make an article on. That's why we have history pages on individual species. Tobyk777 04:17, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 04:59, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Alan del Beccio 19:47, 18 Sep 2005 (UTC)

IRW D'deridex (9-15-05)Edit

IRW D'deridex
  • the page even admits theres no canon reference... it's pure speculation, and captainmike, please don't remove the deletion tag just because its your article. unsigned Makon
its not that its "my article" -- an IP added the deletion notice three times and IP users aren't allowed to nominate articles for deletion. If you intend to remain anonymous, leave your comments on Talk:IRW D'deridex
could you log in, or perhaps read Memory Alpha:Policies and guidelines? i'm afraid no one here can talk to you unless you learn to log in, sign your posts, and leave intelligible comments on talk pages. try reading the policy. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:28, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • lol... i created a user account 5 seconds ago, how does that make me more legitimate than an ip user? Makon
      • Yes.. thats exactly right. it means that your nomination for deletion wasn't valid at all until 5 seconds ago. Congratulations. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:36, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • i'm striking the comment because mike was right. sorry if i seemed vandalistic. Makon 03:12, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • As we've seen the first Starship of a class is usually (I can't think of a direct reference to the Romulans doing this, but it's implied) named after the class. IE: The USS Galaxy is the first Galaxy-class ship, and the IKS Negh'Var is the first Negh'Var-class, and the Kumari was the first Kumari-class ship, etc. etc. Keep. - AJHalliwell 02:43, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • the difference being that those other ships actually existed on screen or had some sort of reference to suggest they were real. the page give the same logic as you did... logic that doesnt amount to any citable source, however likely it is. Makon
  • Delete - too speculative (and btw: "Kumari-class" is contentious) --Memory 18:48, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. There is no source conformation and it is just an assumption, something which Memory Alpha usually doesn't tolerare in its articles. However, it is very likely that the first ship of the class was named the D'deridex. So I'm remaining neutral on the subject until I see what some others have to say. --Shran 03:09, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
i agree that this must have been a ship, but i don't think we should be starting down the slippery slope of "what could be" versus "what is". Makon 03:12, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral on deletion until i have time to consider Romulan ship naming as a whole, but i definitely think there shouldn't be a picture -- the D'Deridex itself wasn't seen, just her sister ships. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Delete 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as there is no evidence that this is canon. If we start with this, then every fan fiction that infers certain conclusions from implications of previous situations in canon would need to be allowed to be posted. For instance, one could infer that Deanna Troi and Will Riker have a child together at some point in the future, however, an article about this child (presumably created in a fan fic) would not be eligible. Not to say that this subject is a fan fic, simply that it is speculation, and that isn't our business here.--Smith 03:29, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the key phrase here is that we can "infer" based on other cultures. That's enough to warrant deletion, since there's no factual basis other than speculation. --Schrei 14:57, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to delete -- we have never seen any case of a Romulan ship class being named after the prototype -- so we really can't assume this would be the name of the prototype of this class. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:04, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Alan del Beccio 06:20, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived --Alan del Beccio 21:33, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Crocodile Edit

  • I find this to be a bit of a stretch. Unlike Eel, it doesnt qualify as a disambiguation page, as there is only one other reference to crocodiles: the Trellan crocodile. Other than that, the rest of this is already (or can be) found in reptile, the only other page linking to it. --Alan del Beccio 21:00, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't justify this. Delete Jaf 21:49, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • DeleteTobyk777 23:13, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree, just not cause for a disambiguation page here. Logan 5 01:57, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • If this page continued to exist, it should redirect (as a disambiguation function) back to an article which lists Trellan crocodile -- possibly recommend redirect to reptile as a term which has not been defined by a Trek reference, but is a portion of the valid Trellan crocodile. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:45, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete or redirect to reptile. This article isn't even correct, as the alligator is not a crocodile, although they are related. (That is, of course, there has been a change in biology in the last four years that I wasn't aware of...) --From Andoria with Love 05:13, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Funny thing, I didn't think there were either, however they are. Def -

  1. "Any of various large aquatic reptiles, chiefly of the genus Crocodylus, native to tropical and subtropical regions and having thick, armorlike skin and long tapering jaws".
  2. "A crocodilian reptile, such as an alligator, caiman, or gavial".

For the record I made this page because while working on the taxonomy and I got as far as reptile and realized that all five major reptile types had been referenced in trek, so it made sense to me to create pages for those types and continue the process. I just feel the need to see things in order, I had trouble getting the info for Turtle and Crocodile and sadly someone destroyed Snake. But the listing looks wonderful. : ) Jaf 13:02, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)Jaf

Syracuse Edit

I believe the author mistakened this for the proper city: Secaucus. --Alan del Beccio 21:53, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Internal AffairsEdit

Internal Affairs

As Excelsior says on the talk page, no citations have been added since the PNA was added three months ago. Tough Little Ship 12:53, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Redirect as suggested on the talk page. -- Cid Highwind 13:06, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Merge & Redirect with Department of Internal Affairs. -- Harry 20:55, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Tobyk777 02:16, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - term could also refer to "the internal affairs of a government", but since we are not a dictionary, I don't suggest we redirect it to any one specific agency to any one specific government. --Alan del Beccio 06:46, 12 Sep 2005 (UTC)


  • unused redirect, badly formed. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:32, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 01:59, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Tobyk777 02:17, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Smith 03:10, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear we have conensus here too. Tobyk777 06:30, 11 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hew-mon Edit

I was going to point it to Slang, but as I pointed out at Talk:Hew-mon, the link to it on the Slang page was the only link there. Honestly, is anyone but a Ferengi gonna type "Hew-mon" into MA? :) --Schrei 04:52, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's not. First, while the others are derogatory terms, this is just bad pronounciation. Second, each article should have its own section on VfD (with some exceptions, of course). Regarding this suggestion (Hew-mon), redirect. -- Cid Highwind 07:33, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree. On The slang page, we have many links to pages about the terms. Often times these are the only links. I think we need to keep all these pages. I think that pages are necisary. We could add links to them from the episodes they're used in. We shouldn't delete them just becuase they have only 1 link. These terms should all be kept. Also, I have contributed to a lot of these pages, and a lot of the info is valid. such as in the article I wrote: Lunar schooner. Tobyk777 16:30, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Delete The reason we should delete hew-mon is because it isn't a "term" -- its the word Human mispronounced with a Ferengi accent. The definition of the word "slang" doesn't exactly include that. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:42, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I still disagree. Besides an alterante spelling, how else would we indicate that the Ferangi say it diffrently? I still say keep every article linked to slang except the "N" word. (That should be deleted as offensive) Tobyk777 17:35, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • how else would we indicate that the Ferengi say it diffrently? -- this is an easy one -- by pointing it out in the text af an article about Ferengi, humans, or both. We don't have separate tomato articles for tomaytoes and tomahtoes -- because various (mis)pronunciations used in Star Trek can be noted in a single article -- basically, there's no intelligent reason to split off another article every time someone said something funny. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:05, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I take back the part about the other terms, because like Cid said, each one should be handled individually. Besides which, even though I think it's really hypocritical to deny the "N-word" its own page while allowing such self-defining pages to stay, it's not worth arguing. --Schrei 19:08, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • So when are we doing Wessel, (Russian slang for Vessel)? Or should we redirect it to slang? DELETE --TOSrules 05:16, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't believe that even qualifies as slang. --Alan del Beccio
      • That, is my point. That is why I voted delete, "Hew-mon", and "Wessal" are both miss pronunciations thus neither deservers it's own article, or even a combined one. --TOSrules 06:07, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was actually considering that we make most of those words listed on the slang page their own articles and turning slang into a proper list' page, rather than a combination page. Otherwise we should redirect all slang terms to slang and add the content from the individual slang pages (ie grup) to the current version of slang. --Alan del Beccio 21:41, 6 Sep 2005 (UTC)

**Deleteand merge the information here into Human, as I don't believe it's mentioned there. (The term is already explained on Ferengi.) --From Andoria with Love 03:28, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

      • You think that belongs in slang? If you think that is slang then I guess Wessel (Vessel) is slang because both are mispronunciation. I think being mentioned on Ferengi is all it warrants. --TOSrules 18:18, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we need to be careful of this one. In the case of "wessel", this is a symptom of Chekov's accent. He consistently mispronounced words with V's throughout the series. As for Ferengi, I can't seem to remember them pronouncing words with the "u" sound in them as "ew". For instance, they say the Rules of Acquisition, and not the Rew-els of Acquisition. It's a little far to guess, but judging by the context of times when the word "Hew-mon" comes out (usually condescending or scornful), so it may be worth it to think of it as slang. Keep.--Smith 05:20, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • He's got a point: what if it's not merely a mispronunciation? What if it's the Ferengi way of saying "Human", much like Andorians call humans pink skin? In other words, they may just call us "hew-mons" to mock us, in which case the article would be valid (or at least a place on the slang article). --From Andoria with Love 05:26, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • hmm, but is there any canon proof that it is a slang, has a Ferangi ever using both Hew-mon and Human? Or is this like Mrs. Carmichael's Pickerd? --TOSrules 05:36, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you find the lines of both being used by the same Ferangi?
  • Delete 1985 16:30, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Sadly, no I can't any dialogue, at least not at the moment. However, I'm reasonably sure it was a condescending term towards humans, not merely a mispronunciation. So, for now, Keep --From Andoria with Love 19:16, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • The only time Ferengi pronounced it the "right" was (ie Quark) was when they had spent a lot of time around humans. The derogatory use is no different from the way Cardassians use the word Bajoran, and it's similar to the way B'Elanna Torres referred to Harry Kim as Starfleet. (That's not the best example, but you get the idea.) --Schrei 19:28, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, note on slang --Memory 22:15, 10 Sep 2005 (UTC)

From talk pageEdit

Does this really deserve an article? I never understood "Hew-mon" as an official term or deliberate nickname, it always seemed to be a Ferengi-typical mispronounciation. -- Cid Highwind 10:08, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • I figured it should or could just be mentioned on the either the slang page or Ferengi page but I'm not sure it deserves its own page or as a redirect to Human. --Alan del Beccio 19:21, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry I pointed it to slang without discussing it, but based on the fact that no one has expressed an objection here in over a month, I figured it's okay. Anyone disagree with pointing it to Slang#Collective_persons, considering the slang page was the only one that linked here? --Schrei 04:48, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think it should be directed to slang, as well. Maybe I shouldn't have reverted that edit... --From Andoria with Love 04:50, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Deleted --Alan del Beccio 06:20, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Zero-point energy Edit

Zero-point energy

Currency-based economics Edit

Currency-based economics

The same information is at money. -Platypus Man | Talk 23:34, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, im new here. 23:37, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Alan del Beccio 23:40, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect and Delete Tobyk777 00:40, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anything on here is mentioned at money. - AJHalliwell 01:10, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all reasons stated above. --From Andoria with Love 04:18, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Delteted

Star Trek: New Voyages Edit

Star Trek: New Voyages

I'd personally like to see this on immediate deletions, as it has no connection to canon trek and would only confuse visitors... Strong Delete. - AJHalliwell 18:49, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, delete. I don't see any difference between this and any other fanfic in filmed or written form. This is well outside the scope of MA. -- Cid Highwind 18:52, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Delete Tobyk777 23:22, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed, keep. New Voyages is a live action video created and funded by a volunteer troupe of fans, the series picks up where the original series left off, putting fan actors into the original series roles. Two episodes are available for download. The group is incorporated as a non-profit organization; the producers invite donations to the Space Shuttle Children's Trust Fund, set up to benefit children of the astronauts who died in the space shuttle Columbia. This production reportedly has the blessing of Gene Roddenberry's estate, and Paramount Pictures has also allowed it to continue. Several actors who once appeared on the original Trek series have appeared in this production. On May 3, 2004, TrekToday it was announced that Eugene Roddenberry, Jr. had endorsed New Voyages, accepting a position on the production staff. He later provided the voice of "The Timepiece Guard" in the second episode. In March 2005, it was announced that Walter Koenig had been signed to reprise his TOS character Pavel Chekov in an upcoming installment written by TOS/TNG writer D.C. Fontana. - Bryansee
...and while that is a good definition, it only reinforces the reason for removal: Noncanon, unrelated to paramount and Star Trek officials (even if it has ex-star trek officials). - AJHalliwell 01:58, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Unlike other non-canon subjects such as those novels, magazines, and comics listed on this wiki, NV is not officially affiliated with Paramount and therefore has no reason to be here. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 07:40, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I agree... Delete, otherwise we'll have to have pages for every fan-fiction film site there is, to do the subject justice, in a similar way to the online roleplaying games page. zsingaya 18:19, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I don't want detailed summaries of various fan-fictions to exist here -- but seeing as this is the most popular of them all, perhaps we could move page to fan fiction or fan movies and present a list of links. In this way we could a) not have to define, summarize, link every fan project that exists and b) give a list of the ones that are active or at least link to an offsite list of fan fiction endeavours.
If not, wtf, delete -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:36, 31 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I agree... Strongly move page to fan fiction or fan movies What about fan episode summaries? (unsigned vote by Bryansee -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:19, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC))
Delete, I'm afraid. Whilst, personally, I love the New Voyages episodes, we specifically say we don't accept material from fan projects. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:04, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
If I strongly agree... Strongly keep or to fan fiction or fan movies Where do I suppose to move to what wiki? (unsigned vote by Bryansee -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:19, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC))
I agree. Strongly keep (unsigned vote by Bryansee -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:19, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC))
Bryansee, this is the fourth time you have placed a vote on this VfD. You only get one vote - such action could be viewed as attempting to ballot-stuff. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:19, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to change my vote to definite delete -- because i don't want to fuel the fire of these illegitimate votes and comments -- is it too much to ask that users form comments in an organized manner or vote following our Memory Alpha:Policies and guidelines? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:26, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I've deleted this page -- as a non-canon subject it goes after two days. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk



Special:Listadmins Edit

I found Special:Listadmins, and as far as I can tell, it is an inaccurate list of Admins. I can't edit it or anything, so I'm not sure what to do. Can anyone explain this if it's valid or delete it if it's not. Thanks. -Platypus Man | Talk 04:05, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • It seems accurate to me... what looks suspicious to you? I know there are some users on there who haven't made any edits, but nonetheless those accounts have admin privileges. At any rate, special pages cannot be deleted as they are internally created as part of the Wiki software. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 04:12, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • OK. I believe you, but then why aren't all of those people here? I thought it was suspicious because of JasonR and Jasonr (being so similar) and the fact that there are a few of them who I've never seen on and don't have user pages. I thought that maybe someone had hacked in and somehow changed it as vandalism for some reason. OK. Thanks. -Platypus Man | Talk 04:19, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • The second page you point out is manually-edited... admins don't appear there unless they're added. I'm not sure why some of those extra accounts are there; I know Jasonr is one of the Wikicities tech people [1] and both names were most likely reserved to prevent impostors. Apparently he just hasn't found a need to edit anything here yet. Some of the others I'm not sure about, but they may have something to do with Wikicities. You may want to contact Angela about those if you're curious... she could probably give you a much better explanation. -- SmokeDetector47| TALK 04:36, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Some of the names are artifacts of the past move from a privately owned server to the wikicities server. Must have something to do with users having different account numbers here and there, I guess. Anyway, it's not a real problem, and as SmokeDetector pointed out, we can't delete Special pages. -- Cid Highwind 09:08, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Is this worth archiving? And if so, where? --Alan del Beccio

USS Runcible, Epsilon Quadrant Edit

USS Runcible, Epsilon Quadrant
  • Non-canon. I have my suspicions who they came from. --Alan del Beccio 05:49, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • No kidding. Delete -Platypus Man | Talk 05:53, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Clearly vandalism by a user whose remaining contributions were clear attempts to be disruptive. I've deleted them to save everyone a little time. --Alan del Beccio 06:24, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Sure these are real, didnt you ever watch "Endgame"?

If you ask me, it was a really Bad Idea to delete these. I just reviewed Endgame, and saw these. Really hard to catch, but they were there. I vote Keep, for whatever that's worth. T'porthos 21:00, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

p.s. I'm not a sockpuppet. I've been making edits for a while, but logged in to vote on this.

  • Well whatever you are your right, read my post at the bottom of this discussion. Tobyk777 02:31, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that these should be moved to the canadates for undeletion board. I think that these were in Endgame. Tobyk777 00:42, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • You're joking right? You might want to do a little research. --Alan del Beccio 00:56, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm not joking, I remember that when I played Endgame in slow mo on my DVD player, the USS Runcible was inprinted on one of the ships. I in fact did do research on this one. That's a cannon source. Tobyk777 02:29, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Can you get a screenshot? What class was it (which, if you can read the name, I'm sure you were able to identify) Do you know what scene, the final headings twards home, or other? So many questions... - AJHalliwell 02:34, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm willing to believe that the Runcible is a real ship, but the Epsilon Quadrant? C'mon. -Platypus Man | Talk 03:34, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

WOW. thats all I can say. I was just joking with the Epsilon Quadrant thing, but it looks like I struck lucky with the USS Runcible. I, too, would be interested in what scene and class this ship was. 05:22, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • It's from nowhere, a fact you just confirmed. In fact, this entire conversation is a farce. C'mon, a runcible is a spork... --Alan del Beccio 05:35, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Well T'porthos and TobyK777 just agreed with me. You might not like to admit it, but I'm right. Time to put USS Runcible up for undeletion. 05:48, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • u know one is a vandal and the other votes for anything right? 05:49, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Look at the discussions below this one. What's Toby voting? Hmmm? and T'Porthos has a cool name. 05:52, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Stop being an idiot, and register a name while your at it you sockpuppet you. 05:57, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that IP votes and comments are void on this page. --Alan del Beccio 05:59, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • u can't disenfranchise us like that 06:00, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • sure he can. Now I can vote. keep. Oh, and we hate you, 193 Runcible 06:09, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh, and your a hipocryte, too. "register a name while your at it, you sockpuppet you"???. Runcible 06:09, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
        • Liar liar pants on fire. Please remember to sign your posts and while your at it refrain from personal attacks. kk thx Rustable 06:04, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
          • Hey, I did sign my posts, for some reason they didnt show. Oh, and you're acting really childish (not a personal attack). Oh, and your first act was to post in a discussion, so I accuse you of being a sock puppet, as per standard procedure. Runcible 06:09, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Real Life Flags Edit

File:Flag of the Soviet Union.png, File:Us flag large.png, File:PRC flag large.png, File:Canadian flag.gif

None of the above flags are images from star trek, and I believe are from wikipedia. Nor do they add that much to their respective articles. - AJHalliwell 08:58, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, in complete agreement. — THOR 09:38, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral, I don't see a problem in having the images, but have no real reason to object it's deletion. A compromise could be, to save space, to resize the images to only 200px in width.. Ottens 11:11, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, the size of the flags is excessive. As China and the USSR were mentioned as participants in world politics, the gov'ts may deserve a mention and a pic -- but how about we fudge it and use the 52-star American flag (File:USA_flag_2033-2079.png? I don't think we need two US Flag pictures, and there's already a note at US explaining the stars on the flag. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 14:47, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • The writer of the article requested at Talk:Earth Cold War that we maintain the integrity by displaying the flag of the correct era. So the question remains: is it necessary. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:57, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete these and stick to what was shown on screen...including the one found on File:CharybdisDebris.jpg and one of the flag shown in (iirc) "The Omega Glory". --Alan del Beccio 05:32, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, these flags are part of the verbal canon. --CaptainJack 09:33, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Verbal canon would be the examples listed at flags and banners, in reference to the Earth flag colors mentioned there. --Alan del Beccio 07:51, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest we come to a consensus on this. --Alan del Beccio 08:08, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Added Canadian flag, as it's similar circumstances...Delete...again, I vote. - AJHalliwell 01:53, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete still. — THOR 04:39, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Deneb Kaitos System (8-31-05)Edit

Deneb Kaitos System

Completely non-canon info, taken from that Surak-forsaken book Star Trek: Star Charts. Delete. - AJHalliwell 01:57, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Never heard of it plus the text of the article is very hard to read. somemhow it turned dark. Tobyk777 02:00, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • A speedy delete. --From Andoria with Love 02:23, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, agree with all of the above.--Smith 23:09, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted--Alan del Beccio 04:32, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Mandarin (8-31-05)Edit

No Trek relevence Tobyk777 21:53, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't think of any relevence either. Delete, unless a reference can be found. --From Andoria with Love 22:08, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it was mentioned by Hoshi Sato at some point, but the article certainly doesn't reflect it so Delete. - AJHalliwell 22:47, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Its from "Encounter at Farpoint", taken from the script, in reference to the "Mandarin-Bailiff" who rings the bell for Judge Q. --Alan del Beccio 23:04, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I don't see us starting articles for each different peoples of Earth mentioned or seen -- better a subheading of Humans -- delete -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:25, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • The term "mandarin" also refers to a title of a Chinese offical...I'm not sure which definiation of the term was intended in the script. --Alan del Beccio 18:50, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it was used in the script. But I admit I don't know where it should go... -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 01:38, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe the Mandarin was a vessel, the U.S.S. Mandarin, in TNG maybe, but not completely sure. user:ms7431
  • I do not believe the Mandarin was a ship, and can't find any evidence of it; a search only finds the bailiff. Even with the ref. I don't see a reason for this page. I think Human nationalities should be subheadings on Human. - AJHalliwell 03:17, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not. If anything we could redirect it to China or like was mentioned above, Human or something. --Alan del Beccio 03:45, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I really see no value here, the article is only 7 words long, and the consensus is to delete, since it has been 10 days, I've deleted it. --Alan del Beccio 04:38, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Adult IchebEdit

Adult Icheb
  • retread of recently deleted content from another article -- there's no need for a separate article for someone who isn't a separate person. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:50, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, we shouldn't have articles for every age of a person. I imagine if we had 20 picard articles, one for him at every age, 1-20. Would that make sense? No Delete Tobyk777 01:11, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Didn't give much thought to the article's overall fit when I was editing it after OP. But perfectly happy with it being incorporated to the main character article. Delete Intricated 09:32, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe I've deleted this link and related content twice before. --Alan del Beccio 21:47, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. You have deleted this already on 31 Jul 2005. - AJHalliwell 01:06, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I knew I archived that immedate delete info for a reason. ;) Anyway, according to the deletion log, this article was created by the same 12.76.7X.XX IP, I belive the user was informed the first time that Adult Icheb and Adult Naomi were both incorrect. --Alan del Beccio 01:26, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Sagittarius A Edit

Sagittarius A

The Sunspots Edit

The Sunspots
  • Not about Star Trek, per se. The contents should really be made part of the background for the individuals mentioned in the article. --Alan del Beccio 07:25, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. This should be moved to the articles on the actors mentioned. Tobyk777 01:18, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I second that... or third that. Whatever. Move. --From Andoria with Love 17:53, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Move. - AJHalliwell 22:47, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • moved/deleted --Alan del Beccio 00:52, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Delta Rana Edit

Delta Rana
  • IIRC, this star was never specifically referred to and appears to be based solely on Delta Rana star system. --Alan del Beccio 07:46, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral unless someone goes back and sees if there is a refrence to this Star, there is no way we can no if it mentioned or not, but if youy are absoulutely sure that this was never mentioned than Delete Tobyk777 23:54, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 22:47, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Alan del Beccio 00:52, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Cardassia (star) Edit

Cardassia (star)

Combine Edit

non-canon --Memory 20:36, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • What is this? Why do you want to delete it. I can't vote until I understand what this is. Tobyk777 21:17, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Read the article? => N-O-N-C-A-N-O-N (*scnr*) --Memory 21:34, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • It is about the extragalactic humanoid race created as a dangerous threat to the Federation and the Klingon Empire. --Bryansee 10:11, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • The movies are cannon, arn't they? The atrcile states that whatever this "Combine" is, that it will appear in the next moive. So this could qualify as cannon. But how did he get the info on this, and from what did he extrapolate that the "Combine" is a threat to the Federation and Klingons? Probably from some article or interveiew outside of MA. (A non-cannon source) So would this qualify as cannon? Tobyk777 05:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is clearly non-canon. And if it was in the next movie, (which, based on the spoilers i've seen, it won't be) it wouldn't qualify getting it's own article yet. Also, the name of the movie has not been decided yet. In fact, this almost seems like one of the articles the vandal's been writing lately, with the uudal-shar or w/e, and all those other species that only link to each other. - AJHalliwell 14:23, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Even assuming that this is 100% for-certain in the next movie (which I'm not suggesting), it still falls under spoiler information and shouldn't be up yet. Much like the information that was deleted from the ENT Season 4 episodes that were leaked before airing -- we removed the information and left it until they aired. — THOR 17:57, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It probably isn't cannon. Tobyk777 18:48, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I get the term "Combine" from my head in my forthcoming Star Trek fan film, Star Trek: Revelations. I probably think that it will set roughly a year after Star Trek Nemesis. It is Fanon. --Bryansee 12:14, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • FanonCanon. — THOR 04:46, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • 'deleted after two-day waiting period for non-canon materials... and its spelled "canon" -- a "cannon" is a big gun. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 09:41, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Alien in male Romulan form Edit

Alien in male Romulan form This article has no text. It is the very shortest in our entire database. I have no idea what it means or what it's supposed to be about. Delete Tobyk777 01:46, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • If you looked at the history, before this article was blanked it was describing one of the quantum singularity lifeforms who inhabited the body of a male Romulan in "Timescape".
The information in the before-blanking article was valid, but the article itself wasn't named or formatted correctly. Therefore, I vote to move this article to "Quantum singularity lifeform" or something similar, then rewrite it up to grade. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 01:59, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, move and rewrite accordingly.--Smith 04:25, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I deleted "Alien in male Romulan" .. evidently overlooked, and placed a {{deletion}} plate on this page. --Alan del Beccio 04:53, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or rewrite and move to an article about the lifeform or the race as a whole. --From Andoria with Love 15:52, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Information restored and moved --Alan del Beccio 23:04, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Sound in space Edit

Sound in space
  • This article isn't cited, and seems to be just a physics page mostly. Background speculation could be put somewhere else.--Tim Thomason 09:47, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Vote to delete as the article does not seem to have any reference to canon. Was this ever discussed in an episode?--Smith 17:01, 12 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:27, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 05:42, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Irrelevant. -Platypus222 20:58, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agreed Tobyk777 00:37, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

antiparticle Edit

From talk pageEdit

i wrote this entry because i found several links to the non-existant page from anti-time and anti-matter pages. It makes such concepts easier to understand when referenced. For example, to say that anti-chronitons are anti-matter equivalents to chronitons is untrue as Chronitons are not matter, they are sub-atomic particles so have anti-particle equivalants

  • How is it canon? It's not a Star Trek universe term. At most, it is a link that should have never been created in the first place. --Alan del Beccio 09:33, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it was mentioned in TNG: All Good Things.
    • While it may not be canon, the blame cannot be placed on the article's creator as there were, indeed, several links to the page. Nonetheless, if it's not canon, it doesn't belong, and once deleted, the links should be removed. --From Andoria with Love 11:39, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • Hence why I said: "At most, it is a link that should have never been created in the first place". ;) --Alan del Beccio 16:42, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Votes for deletionEdit

  • Not cited, not a Trek term. Internal links exist, but appear to have been created at random and not in reference to any specific episode. Also see: Talk:antiparticle. --Alan del Beccio 09:42, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 09:44, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I am determind to cite this. --Filth 09:46, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • If the article becomes sited soon Keep Otherwise Delete Tobyk777 19:03, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if cited and linked to an episode, delete if not.--Smith 23:51, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if a citation can't be found pretty soon. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 02:01, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted. 5 days (6 actually) with no citation, and that means all voted to Delete. - AJHalliwell 06:20, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Phase (matter) (08-22-05)Edit

  • Phase (matter) as we have Phase. Jaf 04:02, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • Delete - it might even belong as an immediate deletion candidate. Don't take my word on that, though. --Shran 07:39, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Phase (matter) seems like it should just be listed with matter, whereas phase is more like a list or a disambiguation page. From a quick glance it looks like some merges, moves and templates need to be made or added. --Alan del Beccio 07:53, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Phase isn't matter, it is state. And trek has yet to tell us what the altered phases (inter, multi and trans) are all about. But it seems safe to assume it is going to be based on science and language. So, I say we redirect Phase (matter) to Phase. Information about what phase, inter, multi and trans are can be added from real life sources if it is still tricky. Jaf 18:55, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf
  • Neutral I don't mean to sound stupid, but I can't figure out why you want to delete this page. Tobyk777 02:41, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The reason for deletion is because phase (matter) is trying to refer to a "real" scientific term - the state of matter's phase (it's worded poorly) -- but regardless, none of this science has ever been mentioned on Star Trek -- so there is absolutely no cause for a Star Trek database to have non-Star Trek related scientific data. The page phase can refer to the real science of the term "phase" -- only if it coincides with a use of the term on Star Trek. Basically we want to keep phase because it is the simplest possible name to contain information about various usages of the term "phase", and we want to delete phase (matter) because it has a improperly formed title and is unrelated to anything we would have cause to write about. Why would we keep an extra page like that?-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:56, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is not a single valid reason to delete this article. -- Krevaner 20:57, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure about that, I think Mike just made one or two, so that's hardly a rebuttal. --Alan del Beccio 21:30, 6 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote to Keep, but only if this link can be linked from other articles, for instance when speaking of how Odo can change phases, or in reference to the Cloud Creature in TOS. Perhaps a reference should be added in the article that differentiates physical phases from those phases mentionned in Trek. As for the title, a simple reformatting could change the problem, we could even change the title to Phase (physical) or Phase (chemistry). Just a thought. --Smith 04:45, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is clearly talking about state's of matter. Odo was often said to revert to a "gelatinous state", not phase. Matter, which links her, shouldn't even have a link to "States of Matter" as it lists it right there on the page. - AJHalliwell 09:53, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Episode Title Cards Edit

File:Homeward.jpg, File:Genesis.jpg, File:Eye of the Beholder.jpg, File:Thine Own Self.jpg, File:Sub Rosa.jpg, File:Parallels.jpg, File:The Pegasus.jpg, File:Inheritance.jpg, File:Attached.jpg, File:Firstborn.jpg, File:Bloodlines.jpg, File:The Naked Now.jpg, File:Yesteryear.jpg, File:Phantasms.jpg, File:Liaisons.jpg, File:Emergence.jpg, File:Encounter at Farpoint.jpg, File:Gambit, Part I.jpg, File:Descent, Part II.jpg, File:Beyond the Farthest Star.jpg, File:Journeys End.jpg, File:Force of Nature.jpg, File:Gambit, Part II.jpg, File:Preemptive Strike.jpg, File:All Good Things....jpg, File:Lower Decks.jpg, File:Dark Page.jpg, File:Interface.jpg, File:VOY Shattered.jpg (29, in all.)

This is actually referring to ALL title card images. These were only the ones I found immediately, but know I am implying by this the deletion (or not) of all title card images on MA.

As you can see from the above, most of these are copies of each other, with a different episode name. It would be a huge waste of space to have one of these for every episode. This argument has been brought up at Memory Alpha:Ten Forward, and File talk:Enterprise and rogue comet.jpg, but both just link to each other and stopped getting responses. - AJHalliwell 22:32, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with the deletion and the suggestion to not continue the upload of further title cards. -- Cid Highwind 22:36, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, delete all. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 04:27, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto, delete. --Alan del Beccio
  • Same here, delete. --Shran 04:53, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • After browsing the discussions regarding the same, I also agree to their deletion as well as the provision that we not allow any more to be added. My own have also been annotated for deletion as well (File:StarshipMine.jpg, File:WhereNoManHasGoneBefore.jpg, and File:MirrorDarklyPt2.jpg). — THOR 16:11, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Orphaned. — THOR 13:42, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Hate to say it, but these also all need to be orphaned first. --Alan del Beccio 09:01, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • all orphaned, ready for deletion --Memory 22:27, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • ALL Deleted. - AJHalliwell 01:20, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Type X Edit

Type X 
(also redirect Type-10 phaser and probably others). Non-canon. I also suggest to clean up all starship articles by removing references to these phaser types, unless someone can cite a valid ressource. -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • As in the nomination above, someone wouldn't knwo wheather to type in 10 or X Keep Tobyk777 22:15, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • This is not about keeping or not keeping a redirect. This is about deleting a non-canon article (that also happens to have a redirect targeting it). -- Cid Highwind 23:21, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • If you look on the collums on the right, in our pages about, Intrepid Akira or Galaxy class ships, in the armament row it refers to type X. Either this is cannon, or all of those pages are not.
  • Neutral, I can't say whether or not this is cannon. --Smith 04:49, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, type 10 phaser maybe keep. In "Conundrum", Captain Worf mentions the type of phasers Enterprise is equipped with I believe. Most other pages seem to have gotten this (and some other info) from the Star Trek: Starships Spotter. -AJHalliwell 23:48, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted Type X just to get that out of the way. Moved article to Phaser type-10. Still need to determine how to cite it, as the Starship Spotter references on the various starship class pages do reference this type of phaser; we just have to decided how vaid the Starship Spotter info is, and if it can be solely cited to an article -- or if we need to remove all references from the Starship Spotter and treat it as non-citable. --Alan del Beccio 09:27, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived--Alan del Beccio 08:30, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Future police (8-10-05)Edit

Future police 
Is unformatted, uncited, etc. and likely gives inaccurate info, as suggested in the article's Talk page. Suggest deletion, with some of the content being merged with the Harry Mudd article. --Shran 03:58, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It may be inaccurate, but it's definitely cited and it seems to have been formatted well enough, I think. It may be a silly concept, but it's just a funny pre-okudagram (or jefferiesgram?). It also wouldn't really fit the Harry Mudd article to go off talking about an agency that may or may not have arrested him.--Tim Thomason 07:32, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I meant just put the police record info into Mudd's article. The term "Future police" likely does not exist - but the term "Future police report" does; in other words, as stated by A.J. in the article's talk page, it was a probably a record for future reference... a number for a "future police report." --Shran 07:38, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge with Harry Mudd and maybe Police Records or whatever. I changed my mind, I guess you shouldn't overspeculate on something that trivial.--Tim Thomason 08:33, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • The key term on the Mudd file was 'police record', which I vote to move this page to. Additionally, have this merged with any references to criminal record and security file, which I have found a total of eight references to. On a separate but related note, have it intra-linked to criminal activity report, which I found an additional eight references to. --Alan del Beccio 01:27, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I have written police record, which should suppliment as a replacement for this article, which I now vote to delete. --Alan del Beccio 09:10, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote to delete.--Smith 04:35, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Indian Sub-Continent, Bangladesh, Pakistan (8/5/05)Edit

Indian Sub-Continent, Bangladesh, Pakistan 
Found marked for deletion but not posted here, so I've added them as I agree with the assessment. Not cited, nor do they appear to have any true Trek value. --Alan del Beccio 18:33, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. --Shran 18:45, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all -- 01:40, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Indian Sub-Continent and India because in TOS: "Space Seed", one Marla McGivers states that it is a distinct posibility that Khan Noonien Singh was from Northern India.
    • The term "sub-continent" was never used, and besides it is just a copy of the preexisting India, there is no reason to have an unnecessary and unuse referenced duplicate. --Alan del Beccio 17:34, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted -- not canon, no Trek value. --Alan del Beccio 05:49, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Tungsten-cobalt-magnesium (8/5/05)Edit

References solely from Star Trek: The Next Generation Interactive Technical Manual, which has been previously agreed upon to not be a valid enough of a source for a solitary article. Perhaps mentioning them individually in each of tungsten, cobalt and magnesium might be more suitable. --Alan del Beccio 06:57, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

US Space Command Edit


Only two users voted for the retention of this article, all others voted for deletion (although some noted the data might be kept, but under a more appropriate article name).

I believe this middle ground is a good solution, because I feel the rating badge and assignment patch are worth a look as Star Trek related topics, however, as they have never been mentioned on Star Trek, there's no way (according to the policy of our board, not any desire to make a personal insult to the contributor) that we can keep them,. Memory Alpha's mandate and policies do not allow the inclusion of real-life information in its own article -- information must be mentioned in Star Trek episodes or movies to be valid for inclusion -- i feel this topic is relevant, however, but as background information (this is why we keep subsections such as this separate).

Our policies, if you have read them, are not among thing i consider to be the silliest things I ever read. They stand.

No one has insulted anybody. We are discussing your contributions to the page, not anyone personally. If you make a contribution that is unacceptable, the archivists voting to remove it is no personal reflection on you. It is compliance with the regulations of this page and the wishes of the community who created it.

The use of the "innaccuracy" message was not to state that anyone had made false claims about the information they presented. we are not questioning anyone's knowledge of the US Space Command. It was marked as inaccurate because that information was not an accurate appraisal of information we felt could be included in an article under that name. No one ever mentioned the US Space Command on Star Trek, therefore the article US Space Command is not valid.

I encourage everyone involved to use discussion pages and proceedings such as these to try and find the best way to present the information that you wish to add to Memory Alpha. If we find an article that is not valid as named or edited, we really should be making efforts to move the info to a more appropo location, such as US armed forces. We should read the policy pages to better understand why one user would claim that information needs to be moved, and follow the policy to move it there. This would be much more constructive that somehow making the leap of judgement that, because MA archivists with to move your article, it is interpreted as a personal attack. This is not the case, we just want to move a contribution to a different article. People move my contributions around every day, I try to keep a mature attitude and help the information flow into place-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:13, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)


US Space Command 
The information on this page has been proven inaccurate, and unless another source can be found for it, it doesn't belong here. --Shran 21:24, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • NO to delection. Sir, you have insulted me and I demand satisfaction. How is it inaccurate? You've proven nothing! What are your sources? You're saying I'm a liar? The section on the badges/patches is highly notable in the least. --WehrWolf 21:33, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete : This information may be accurate in "the real world", but has not been proven to be accurate or canon in the "Star Trek universe". How do we know that the US Space Command existed in the Star Trek universe? We don't, as it has never been cited. Therefore we cannot assume that is existed in that universe as it does in our own unless there has been some on screen indication that is has. --Alan del Beccio 21:39, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
That is one of the silliest things I've ever read. --WehrWolf 21:42, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
However, it is within the guidelines of the community's mission. Real life information is the realm of Wikipedia, and we link to them whenever this type of information is required. Please see Memory Alpha:Resource policy for more. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:20, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the "This is one of the silliest things I ever read" comment; referring to the page that is. - AJHalliwell 02:21, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move the information about the insignia similarities and origins to United States armed forces or USA (in a background section, as it is not information derived from any canon episode.
As you can see from the accompanying talk pages, the archivists involved have a basic misunderstanding of the policies of Memory Alpha -- We are not allowed to theorize who was in command of anything in the Star Trek storyline if it was not mentioned somewhere in the Trek storyline, i.e a canon film or episode. I'm not sure if this constitutes our policy pages bein "silly" reading -- they are designed to make sure that the contributors to the wiki stay within the parameters of this page's design. Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:30, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete content not proven canon -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:59, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep at least in some way, as there are some very interesting comparisons there. -- CaptainJack - 09:09, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:US Space CommandEdit

As an Air Force colonel, I can vouch that the article is factually accurate. (155) 29 July 05

I have no question as to the accuracy -- but I have to question the relevance if the Space Command was never mentioned on Star Trek -- beyond the homage present in the insignia. perhaps other archivists have views on this? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:04, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I dont recall it being mentioned in the reference cited. --Alan del Beccio 20:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The inaccuracy notice is because this article mentions the space Command in relation to the Phoenix in Star Trek: First Contact -- but the US Space Command was not at all mentioned in First Contact. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:05, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Nitrogen wasn't mentioned either, but an atmosphere consisting mostly of it was everywhere in the movie. All US missile sites belong to US Space Command, whether mentioned or not. Please note it was called "old" US Space Command missile site, indicating that Space Command no longer operated it. --User:WehrWolf 21:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's excellent article on Star Trek:First Contact establishes that there is only one missile base in Montana; it's Malmstrom AFB. And wouldn't you know it, it's a base under the command and control of US Space Command. [2]
The website describes the site as being in central Montana - I just looked at a map and it doesn't get more central than Malmstrom AFB. [3]
However, several Enterprise episodes have established that the complex was in Bozeman, which is about 125 miles from Malmstrom. [4] -- SmokeDetector47 // talk
Yes, but let me explain how a missile base works: the main base contains the command and control functions, and the dependent missile sites are dispersed in the countryside for a radius of several hundred miles. These sites are accessed for shift changes (shifts are several days long) by helicopter. The reason they are dispersed, is so an enemy attack on any of them will not destroy all of them. --User:WehrWolf 22:00, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
But is there a missile base in Bozeman? Under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom? Regardless, this is still very much speculation and should be confined to background notes in an appropriately-titled article, as mentioned in the VfD. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:08, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The word is site, rather than base, and the exact location of missile sites are classified. I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese know where they all are though. The key thing is that any missile site in central Montana would be under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom AFB --User:WehrWolf 23:13, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against any of your points any missile base or site in Montana today would be under the jurisdiction of the Space Command. This is not in question.

Do you have the knowledge to tell me what is going to happen in Montana in 2006? or 2016? Can you guarantee that Malmstrom is going to exist in its current state in 2036? and that the Space Command will be administrated exactly the same way in 2046?

Assuming that the answer is "no" and you cannot foresee the future, I'd ask why you think it is necessary to make broad assumptions like this. This would risk our articles becoming completely uninformative if they contained so much speculation rather than what Memory Alpha was designed to be: A repository of data about what happened and was mentioned on Star Trek.

None of this has been mentioned on Star Trek.

Let me draw a parallel: In 1945 there was no US Air Force. A writer in 1945 would write about the US Army Air Corps, because he would be completely unaware that in later decades there would be a USAF created.

So that writer would be wrong by using undue speculation to write about the 1980s exploits of the US Army Air Corps. Just as I think it is completely erroneous to speculate that the US Space Command of 2005 might be the same organization in 2050 when WWIII starts, or that a Montana AFB would even be there in 2050, let alone trying to make assumptions about what its role is in WWIII

Please try to limit the contributions here to things that are relevant to Star Trek without making all of these assumptions.-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:34, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Votes for deletion Edit

Wikipedia's excellent article on Star Trek:First Contact establishes that there is only one missile base in Montana; it's Malmstrom AFB. And wouldn't you know it, it's a base under the command and control of US Space Command. [5]--WehrWolf 22:32, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

But again, this is the real world and not the Star Trek universe. Who's to say that there weren't other missile bases constructed during World War III, or that there weren't more bases in the Trek universe? It's quite clear that "our" reality is totally different from the history established in the Trek reality, i.e. there were no Khans or DY-100s or multiple Voyager probes. That said, some of the article could probably be moved to something more descriptive, like missile complex (Montana) or missile complex (Phoenix). -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:45, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but it's a 20th century missile, rather than a 21st century missile - ergo a 20th century missile base. WehrWolf 22:47, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The Phoenix was built from a Titan V, which doesn't even exist in reality so it's impossible to know when the missiles were introduced. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:01, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
However, the Phoenix page says "The missile type the Phoenix is constructed from comes from the Star Trek Fact Files, and as such, should not be treated as canonical." The missile that it most closely resembles is a Titan II, and the Titan V could easily be an upgrade. [6]

Moving content to US Space Command badges - noting the similarity to starfleet badges. --WehrWolf 1 Aug 2005

  • That is also posted for deletion, see below. --Alan del Beccio 23:04, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Deleted --Alan del Beccio 23:04, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

US Space Command badges (8/3/05)Edit

US Space Command badges
  • This a background information-type article and does not fit into the M/A article format properly. It should be written in an 'inside looking out' rather than 'outside looking in' perspective. --Alan del Beccio 17:43, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I also think that some user keeps adding non-relevent articles about things in the U.S. today. These do not belong on MA. Sevral of them have appeared on the deletion board, like chalenger, and descovery etc. Trek never goes into detail about any of this and the sources sited in these articles only cover part of the information in them. The rest comes from non-Trek sources. Delete Tobyk777 22:30, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Europa (8/3/05)Edit


No trek relevance. - AJHalliwell 09:14, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree I dont see how this could related to trek, or sci-fi--Kahless 09:36, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete --Shran 00:31, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - 02:36, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC) (VOTE IS VOID)
    • This page will needs to be orphaned. There are several pages linked to it that need to be unlinked, if indeed they are not canon links. --Alan del Beccio 18:11, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Handball (8/3/05)Edit

IP created page, no pages interally link to it, appears to be non-Trek. --Alan del Beccio 05:56, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Shran 02:17, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the game from "Suddenly Human", does this have a page yet? I think this may just need cleaning up. I'm gonna say...Keep, if it's found that they are the same thing. - AJHalliwell 02:29, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • In "Suddenly Human" Picard and the boy play Racket Ball. Not hand ball. Delete No Trek Relevence Tobyk777 05:39, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Federation Marines (8/2/05)Edit

Original comments taken from talk:Federation Marines:

Is this going to be a production article, or a canon article. Cause it can't be both, as Starfleet links here, which means the Point of View should be changed to conform with other Canon articles. (Ahh, I'm not fond of this article...) Coronal West, for the record, was wearing a Starfleet uniform with Admiral rank, it's possible "Coronal" was just a nickname cause he was a military advisor. And David Marcus's comment should be taken just like the aliens who'd call the Enterprise-D a "battle cruiser" or "destroyer". The Federation flag ship, is certainly not one of those. - AJHalliwell 19:18, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I also don't believe this page should be linked as a division of Starfleet in the Starfleet article -- as a totally non-canon idea it should only be linked from a background section.
Also -- adapted from wikipedia? our license discourages copying from wikipedia, we prefer original contributions. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:16, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Federation Marines
  • Copied from Federation Marines at Wikipedia Written in an incorrect point of view (outside looking in pov), exact usage of the name never used in Trek. --Alan del Beccio 07:23, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I should probably also add that this (nearly) exact article already recently lost a battle over at Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements and was previously deleted for that reason. According to rule #6 over at Memory Alpha:Pages for immediate deletion: "Reposted content that was deleted according to this deletion policy" -- so it might qualify for an immediate delete. --Alan del Beccio 07:34, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that qualifies the article as an immediate deletion candidate. By all means, place it there. Burn, baby, burn! :þ --Shran 07:38, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
        • The previous article was called Starfleet Marines and I went into the deletion archive and pulled out that version and pasted it at talk:Federation Marines. --Alan del Beccio 07:43, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
          • Oh, yeah, definitely the same article, definitely a candidate for immediate deletion. Both versions were copied from the same Wikipedia article. --Shran 07:52, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete! - AJHalliwell 07:25, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur. Delete. --Shran 07:26, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Addendum (8/6/05)Edit

  • Article was deleted in violation of official 5 day policy. Article should be restored and given time for a real vote, not just arbitrary action. - 10:25, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Article was validly deleted under rule #6 of the immediate deletion policy, which supercedes standard deletion policy, as per additional note #1 of same. -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:31, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Exactly, the article was already deleted as per that policy before, so it was now deleted twice because of #6 -- Kobi - (Talk) 15:36, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Disagree, it was a different article. - 15:53, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Negative, it was aside for the credit line and two missing wikilinks the very same article -- Kobi - (Talk) 16:03, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Au contrare - some of the content was different. This topic deserves a valid airing in some format here at Memory Alpha. - WehrWolf 16:15, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • All I see is minor rewording in what looks to be an attempt to get around the copyvio (the large proportion of the article remains almost identical to the Wikipedia article). In addition, the topic does not belong here - being entirely speculation created by fans around a few, unconnected points. It has never been stated in a valid resource (as the original Wikipedia article itself states), and thus is not suited for an article in MA. -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:32, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like Michael beat me to the punch (edit conflict), so I'll try again I said it before, I'll say it again: Copied from Federation Marines at Wikipedia. Some of the content changed is hardly enough to constitute an original contribution. Secondly it was written in an incorrect point of view (outside looking in pov), exact usage of the term never used in Trek. --Alan del Beccio 16:34, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Just for the record -- content which cannot be cited as canon can be deleted in two days after listing on VfD, rather that the usual five days, under Memory Alpha:Canon policy. -- However I agree this was a reposting. A different name does not a different article make if you copy paste it (also, unregistered users don't have a say here as to voting, so disregard any votes from non-logged in archivists). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:28, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • I vote to remove this conversation, again. :) --Alan del Beccio 19:23, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ferengi philosophy (8/2/05)Edit

Ferengi philosophy
  • This article seems redundent and unnesscary-Kahless 04:17, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that this is just incomplete Keep Tobyk777 05:46, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC) 05:41, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
From talk page:
  • I would say this single sentence is pretty obvious and already stated several times on the main Ferengi page. Either turn it into a complete article, or delete it. --Malimar 21:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree, its not even as robust as the Ferengi History page. Delete Logan 5 20:28, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Rules of Aquisition (8-2-05)Edit

"Rules of Aquisition"
  • I disagree. I think that the 2 articles whould be the excat same. If someone were to want to find a list of the rules how would they know wheather to type in "Rules of Aquisition" or "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition"? I think that the text of the article should be deleted, then the text from "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition" should be copied and pasted to the other article. That way, they both have a nice layout, and people can find the rules more easily. Tobyk777 05:48, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be a waste of space, we have a way of turning "Rules of Acquisition " into a "Redirect", or when ever someone types that in, it would automatically transfer them to "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition". Not that it applies in this case, as Acquisition is spelled wrong, and "Rules of Acquisition" is already a page. Delete. - AJHalliwell 01:43, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • ALso I believe many of the rules are from non-canonsources since the teo lsits do not match and their are no citations for each one. It might have been also a copyright infrindgement for we dont knwo where the list comes from, and since their are no citations some might be made up by the original author, i vote for a deletion of this page --Kahless 02:22, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - incorrect spelling, redundant link of preexisting "Rules of Acquisition". --Alan del Beccio 03:27, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • A speedy delete. --Shran 00:41, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted. We have both Rules of Acquisition, as well as "Rules of Acquisition", a disambiguation page, which easily gets you to the former page. --Alan del Beccio 08:05, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Shattered redirects (8/1/05)Edit

(Adult Icheb) Icheb (alternate) and (Adult Naomi Wildman) Naomi Wildman (alternate)
Unneeded redirects with no articles linking to them. Originally created as individual articles for older versions of the characters as seen in VOY: "Shattered", info which should already be on the characters' main articles. --Shran 04:02, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Agreed to merge them back into Icheb and Naomi Wildman, and then delete these unused titles. The concept we have to consider here is that all alternate versions of a character should be listed in their main article unless the information is notable as a separate article (for example, we have Spock and Spock because there is more than enough information of the mirror Spock to fill a second article, or even the more minor Miles O'Brien breaking off Miles O'Brien (replicant) -- there's enough to say about the duplicate to justify the second article). These characters appeared for a few seconds, and if they had articles, they would be at Icheb (future) (or more appropriately from our knowledge of how the timeline of VOY later plays out, Icheb (alternate)). -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 04:25, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)
  • Archived as noteworthy comment for possible future reference. --Alan del Beccio 01:53, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Bayer name (8/1/05)Edit

Bayer name

Was "Bayer name" said in the episode? Cause it's only listed in the "Background info" at "This Side of Paradise", and while it does list a little trek info, I'm thinking this is a real science term which wasn't used in Star Trek. - AJHalliwell 01:28, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Discovery (8/1/05)Edit

Another real life science something, that has never been mentioned or referenced in Star Trek. We deleted Mir and the Hubble recently, I assume this falls under the same criteria. - AJHalliwell 08:57, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete. --Shran 12:37, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — THOR 14:04, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete.-Kahless 20:50, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • delete --Alan del Beccio 05:10, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Tobyk777 05:44, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Darth Vader (8/1/05)Edit

Darth Vader
another page marked for deletion but not posted here. Obviously not Trek. However, it could be moved to Vader, an 'in-joke' name found on a gravestone in "Phantasms", mostly likely named after the Darth. --Alan del Beccio 18:39, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Vader and rewrite. --Shran 18:44, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no relevance here.-Platypus222 21:30, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for aforementioned reasons.--Scimitar 23:07, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I would write the Vader article, say he lived on Caldos colony and then say he was named for Darth Vader. Tough Little Ship 23:14, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah better Detele! Completely not Star Trek. Benjrh 23:45, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with every single post here Delete Also, nothing links to it. 01:39, 1 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Rakelli (7/31/05)Edit

Non-canon, source cited from video game. --Alan del Beccio 21:55, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Rapid Nadion Effect (7/31/05)Edit

Rapid Nadion Effect 
This page is admitted speculation. When created, the user stated the article was a "Hypothesis of what is the Rapid Nadion Effect based on hard science." As such, there are no citations, either. Should either be edited with canon, non-speculative info or deleted. --Shran 18:47, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Lance phaser (7/30/05)Edit

Lance phaser
Content may be accurate, but the name of weapon is not canon and should probably be moved elsewhere. --Alan del Beccio 06:17, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Perhaps the info can be merged into Phaser or a similar article? --Shran 02:23, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
How can the content be accurate if the name is non-canon, and they never stated that it was a short range weapon. Those 2 things are basically the entire article so i vote for delete--Kahless 02:39, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous fanon and non-Trek articles of similar content (7/27/05)Edit

Skithtranti, Skithtranti Domain, Pethnar, Hargeshite Commonwealth, Phazon Beam, Jump Drive, Obarith, Ysthra Ufam, Drezsyc, Argob, Aoz, Talath
  • Can't tell if these are fan-based or from a game or novel, but whatever they are, it isn't from any television show I've watched. --Alan del Beccio 01:31, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • They're terms for some online, non-Trek RPG hero game. Delete --Shran 01:54, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 04:07, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know if I should create a new sub-section for these, or just post them under this as it seems to be by the same person withe same so-strange it seems to be made up off the top of his head content. - AJHalliwell 19:12, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, these were featured in some Voyager episode, cant remember which one. The Hargeshite Commonwealth were referenced in an alternate timeline during the Temporal Cold War.
    • Uh, no. First of all, the Temporal Cold War was Star Trek: Enterprise, not Star Trek: Voyager. Second of all, Google would seem to disagree with you, in fact it belongs to some fantasy rpg called "Hero System: Fantasy Hero - The Turakian Age". For that matter, Google couldn't even locate "Obarith". --Alan del Beccio 04:53, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Any coincidence is entirely coincidental. 19:16, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete its in no timeship episode i ever watched, I could chekc but buys with that Assigment earth overhaulKahless 05:13, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Delete, delete them now, and delete them quickly! There seriously can't be anyone who could find a reason to keep these? As a Voyager fan/expert, there is no one who will find these canon. Based on what a "Phazon beam" says, it would have *had* to be mentioned in "Relativity" or "Future's End", and it definitly was not. - AJHalliwell 05:17, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, Delete, Delete, and Delete. No canon information, nothing even remotely related to Trek. Also suggest blocking of the 67. IP address, at least for awhile, as this is not the first time we've had trouble with him/her. --Shran 12:35, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETED ALL - most likely originated from our repeat vandal, no reason to keep, clearly not canon or even of usable/citable Trek origin. --Alan del Beccio 21:05, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Starbase 612 (7/27/05) Edit

Starbase 612 
A reference to Star Trek:Armada was added to this article. This is not a valid resource. If it is the only reference, delete or merge on the page about the game. -- Cid Highwind 10:06, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Delete or merge. - AJHalliwell 10:22, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete --Shran 13:59, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • "Merge" - Luke80.
  • Merge. --Brad Rousse 04:09, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Absolute zero Edit

Absolute zero 
The content of the article does not indicate the usage of the term, but rather an flub made by the writers where they ignored its properties. --Alan del Beccio 22:02, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

This correctly defines what absolute zero is, but is incomplete in it's descriptions. --Count23 13:26pm, 23rd July 2005 (GMT+10)

It may correctly define the term, but no episode has been cited as using that exact term. Unless a canon source is found soon, I vote for delete. --Shran 03:07, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I'll look for this one if I can I have a feeling it might be a Voyager episode and i have a few in mind.Kahless 04:08, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

USS Hokkaido (7/27/05)Edit

USS Hokkaido
previously mentioned in the above deletion for Starbase 326 by James Cody. --Alan del Beccio 22:23, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Shran 03:08, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Delete and place an annotation in the Renaissance-class article. --James Cody 14:31, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Romulan-Dominion Nonaggression Pact (07/17/05)Edit

Romulan-Dominion Nonaggression Pact
The usage of this title infers that this is the official name of this agreement. Nevertheless, the article links to nowhere in M/A; and its content, singles out the Romulans, ignores the Bajorans, Miradorn and Tholians -- and above all, is an inferior duplicate of what can already be found at Nonaggression pact. --Alan del Beccio 08:41, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • A speedy delete. --Shran 08:44, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 17:33, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral We should have an article on non-agression pacts, and should have a page that links to it, but it should not single out the Romulans.
  • See: Nonaggression pact. Redirect if necessary. Jaf 19:42, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)Jaf
    • That was already mentioned that in the initial post. --Alan del Beccio 19:52, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Alan del Beccio 22:33, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Galactic political powers (07/17/05)Edit

Galactic political powers 
Since there is such a large debate on this articles talk page, it ultimately seems quite superfluous. The fact that it is far too restrictive, mostly because there is no concrete outline as to why some governments are allowed and others are not, I really see no point in keeping it. Considering we already have government and politics, why not reorganize that page instead of recreating it under this name? --Alan del Beccio 17:25, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Merge the two-Both articles have there merit, merge the teo a problem i found with the government and politics page is that it merges the Alpha a Beta quadrent it should they should be seperate, or dictate that it flows over both, becasue while the federation i know spread over both doesn't the klingon empire jsut reside in teh Beta quadrent?Kahless 22:12, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --Shran 03:27, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Alan del Beccio 22:33, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Founding federation planets (07/16/05)Edit

Founding federation planets; page doesn't have any real content right now, and I can't think of any content that wouldn't be a duplication of several other pages. Besides, the title needs to be changed, should the article stay. -- Cid Highwind 08:45, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't think of a reason we would need it, Federation clearly states the info. Nothing links to it, and I doubt anyone would type it in, when they could just look up Federation history. - AJHalliwell 08:51, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Shran 08:54, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete What this article says is all on the page titled United Federation of Planets and subpages of it. --User:Tobyk777 16, July 2005

Starbase 326 (07/16/05)Edit

Starbase 326

No canon mention, only appears in the TNG technical Manuel. While "trustworthy non-canon", I believe we've deleted things that were only in the tech manuals like this before. -AJHalliwell 00:48, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

  • We are in agreement, pink skin. Delete --Shran 07:43, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is simply incomplete. It might have a cannon source, it's simply not listed.
    • For one, If at anytime in the future a mention is realized, the page will simply be redone. Secondly, Non-registered users are not allowed to vote on Votes for deletion. - AJHalliwell 23:44, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No references from valid resources. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:55, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No references from valid resources. In addition, I suggest voting about USS Hokkaido, too. --James Cody 09:43, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

United Earth Alliance (07/14/05)Edit

United Earth Alliance 
The entire article is purely speculation, a creation of fan fiction, as there has been no mention of such an alliance. (Notice there are no sources cited.) For one thing, if the Andorians and Tellarites were involved, it wouldn't be called a United Earth Alliance, now would it? Anyway, it's nothing but inaccurate information and should be deleted. --Shran 05:07, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As already said, this is completely non-canon and originates in a time before ENT. Kennelly 13:25, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow, I'm surprised this page still exists... hope it gets deleted soon. --Shran 07:36, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. - AJHalliwell 19:55, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hanger 18: Roswell (07/10/05) Edit

Hanger 18: Roswell
Wasn't sure how to go about deleting this, as it more or less is a duplicate of, or someones resolution to fixing, Hanger 18: Area 51, which was already posted here (see above), moved to Hangar 18 and deleted. I propose the same here. --Alan del Beccio 01:56, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Delete - AJHalliwell 06:27, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Alan del Beccio 06:58, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Star Trek: Hidden Frontiers Edit

Star Trek: Hidden Frontiers - a start on an article about a fan-made series. Currently outside of Memory Alpha's remit. -- Michael Warren | Talk 20
40, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Delete - AJHalliwell 06:27, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Delete Excellent series, but non-cannon. --AmdrBoltz 06:37, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Alan del Beccio 06:58, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Seems to be a duplicate of anyon, but even then contains half non-Trek information and half inaccurate information about the episode "The Next Phase". If someone can rewrite it and add Trek references, then it can stay, but it should be deleted in its current form. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:01, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete' Each has their own page on wikipedia, as different things. But in this case the spelling should be looked into (I'm going to guess Anyon is right). And delete the other one. -AJHalliwell 23:53, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Gvsualan 00:20, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Theory of Special Relativity (07/04/05)Edit

Theory of Special Relativity 
No Trek content, no citation, seems not to belong here. --Gvsualan 07:37, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Didn't Barclay discuss Special Relativity with a holographic recreation of Einstein? In that case, keep/rewrite, else delete. -- Cid Highwind 14:57, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • He did, keep/rewrite --AmdrBoltz 20:05, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, This is mentioned in alot of cannon sources. - <unsigned>
    • Thats a rather vague, do you have a canon source you could provide? --Alan del Beccio 01:45, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm with Gvsulan, it was the General Theory seen in The Nth Degree and I don't remember any other mentioning (at least not of the Special Theory). Kennelly 13:30, 15 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Deleted -- was not in above mentioned episode as originally stated. --Alan del Beccio 22:09, 22 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hanger 18: Area 51Edit

Hanger 18: Area 51 
Area 51 was not referred to in "Little Green Men" as this article indicates -- and at most should be limited to an article called Hangar 18 that noted in italics at the bottom that it may be located in Area 51. --Gvsualan 23:13, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Althought not referenced directly, star trek writers have taken careful effort to tie the plot of LITTLE GREEN MEN into the ROSWELL INCIDENT conspiracy theory which is referenced. Hanger 18 at roswell air force base was where quarks treasure was kept for a time, not the hanger 18 allegedly in area 51 as is mentioned in the conspiracy theory. This article clears up any confusion which may arise and is useful to Memory Alpha. --<unsigned>

Roswell Air Force BaseEdit

Roswell Air Force Base 
For one, the US Air Force did not exist at the time this episode portrays, secondly, the site was never specified and if it were it would have been called the "Roswell Army Air Field". This should fall into the same category as the above Hawaii -- implication isn't as concrete as direct reference. If anything, this and the above Hanger 18: Area 51, should be merged to the Roswell Incident article, or perhaps the article on New Mexico (if such an article legitimately exists). --Gvsualan 23:53, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Phaser-Type II-GEdit

Phaser-Type II-G 
Seems like fan creation. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 16:49, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Hawaii Edit

Not linked to any pages, and as well, no episode references come to mind. Although Honolulu has be referenced, I'm not sure we should keep Hawaii on the account of Honolulu. I know we've had votes on states before, I will do some browsing to see previous justifications. --Gvsualan 02:55, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ah, yes, no direct Trek reference made to name Hawaii. --Gvsualan 02:57, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete : No reference comes to my mind, either. Article not needed. --Shran 03:09, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Did "Proving Ground" mention Hawaii? I think they said the original proving ground was there, but I may be wrong. If we decide to keep this, a "Ensign Manuele Atoa" appeared to be of Hawaiian decent (and name). (We have done something like this for Germany, and Leah Brahms) And also, the Humuhumunukunukuapua'a is the State fish of Hawaii. Also, the Phase II project would have had an episode in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. If my "Proving Ground" reference is correct, I say Keep. If not, these should be marked somehow...-AJHalliwell 04:03, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • The Humuhumunukunukuapua may be from Hawaii but there is nothing in Star Trek that mentions that fact. If we did count that then we might as well surrender and make this into another Wikapeida. --TOSrules 04:54, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Just a few notes/responses: The "Proving Ground" reference was to the Bikini Atoll. The Humuhumunukunukuapua'a is not native to Hawaii, it's native to the Pacific Ocean. Pearl Harbor is a location in Hawaii, but so is Honolulu. Manuele Atoa may have been Samoan, but that doesn't mean he's Hawaiian. And, finally, the article on Germany has numerous references and is not, by any means, in existance solely because of Leah Brahms. --Gvsualan 05:50, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete : Otherwise, get an article for every state or region which contains something important. --Werideatdusk 01:24, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I believe there are a few other states/countries we have because a single city/facility is located in them, and they have aroused no problems in MA. --Brad Rousse 19:59, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Most of those have been posted for deletion or deleted, there are several in the Deletion archive. --Alan del Beccio 01:45, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Alan del Beccio 01:45, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Archived --Alan del Beccio 10:57, 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Enhanced Compression RifleEdit

Enhanced Compression Rifle 
Apparently non-canon, additionally unformatted. Delete or at least merge content on the game article. -- Cid Highwind 14:54, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: If your saying this rifle is not cannon, than the game article itself if thus then not cannon. This means that should then be deleted as well. However the idea to merge the rifle article into the game article is a good idea
    • Your premise is flawed. Memory Alpha has two "supercategories" of article - Trek Universe and Trek Franchise. Trek Universe articles are beholden to the resource policy, which states what is and is not valid for use. Trek Franchise articles, which describe things like the series, books and computer games, are not. The Star Trek: Elite Force II article is Trek Franchise, and thus perfectly acceptable. Enhanced Compression Rifle is intended as Trek Universe, and thus is not, as it is sourced from an invalid resource. Merge, then delete. -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:50, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete. - AJHalliwell 16:48, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • it's not cannon -- it's rifle :). delete it. The game really exists and is for sale, so we have an article for it. The rifle has not appeared on any canon production, therefore we will not have an article for it. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
I renamed the link to its proper format Enhanced compression rifle. --Gvsualan 23:13, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Q goverment (7-6-05)Edit

Q goverment 

Frankly, I don't recall the mention of any sort of "Q government" being specifically referred to. This should be best left as part of the Q Continuum article. --Gvsualan 23:35, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete --AmdrBoltz 00:54, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Shran 18:14, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Gvsualan 11:36, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)


  • delete or replace It might not be appropriate to include an image from another production like Jurassic Park. A more "fair use" image if one is needed for reference purposes here? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Delete. Do we need to outsource image? Simply put, I was thinking that if we can't cap it off of some Star Trek source, then we don't add to the article. Since we can link these pages to other sources, allow those sources to supply the images. --Gvsualan 08:20, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Image needs to be orphaned for deletion --Gvsualan 07:50, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Measurements (06-29-05)Edit

Overall Diameter; Overall Draft; Draft; Length; Height; Maximum Speed; Levels
  • Memory Alpha is not a dictionary. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Agreed, but obviously the poster feels this is important. Is there perhaps a page of words regarding starships that these could redirect to? --Brad Rousse 05:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, however, I would like to see a page on Decks of starships/DS9 and base it entirely on spoke references, supplimented with the Star Trek Encyclopedia. --Gvsualan 07:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. AmdrBoltz 07:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Perhaps create a page starship specifications or something of the sort, though? Ottens 07:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd go with Otten's suggestion of a specifications page. Perhaps it could even be used as a template for which pieces of data to include in ship class articles, as well as a destination for Largest/smallest figures. --Short Circuit 19:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Move / Delete, I supported the removal of one Measurement before, and it is a valid argument, while Earthly references have to be on MA how do we fit them in. In the case of Measurements, I suggest consolidating them into a Earth measurements page. This should also include cc which I supported keeping this page, yet deleting the Kilometer page. This could solve a few problems. --TOSrules 21:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- additionally, we already have a page called measurements. --Gvsualan 23:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Measurements is a general list of links to various measurement pages, it is not about the details of listed measurements. All the measurements on Earth measurements would be linked from that page like [[Earth measurements#Length|Length]]. Although I do have to admit the ones listed above are a bit general, and might not be appropriate for the page I suggest. --TOSrules 23:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Endeavour (06-29-05)Edit

No Trek relevance; IIRC a page on the shuttle Columbia was also deleted a few months back under the same criteria. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I completelty agree. This is not Nasa's pride page. User:Tobyk777 22 June 2005
  • Delete Agreed as well. --AJHalliwell 23:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --AmdrBoltz 18:37, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted --Gvsualan 05:24, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Skylab (06-29-05)Edit

Again, no Trek relevance. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 02:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hubble Space Telescope Edit

Hubble Space Telescope
Same as above. No Trek value. --Gvsualan 06:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ourai (06-29-05)Edit

No canon mention, fan made Romulan language translation. Delete. -AJHalliwell 04:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Our language pagea are probably the most incomplete section on Memory Alpha. Why delete a good page, just becuase the poster didn't site their source. Also, I had never heard of this before. I learned something from this page. And learning about Trek is why Memory Alpha exists. User:Tobyk777 24 June 2005
  • Delete: It's not a "good page" if it's not canon, which seems to be the case here. --Gvsualan 07:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Gvsualan, doesn't matter how good the article is (not that I'm saying this one is) if its non-cannon. Jaz 15:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Cannon = big gun ;) --Gvsualan 22:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Deleted --Gvsualan 05:24, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furanium (06-29-05)Edit

Information from the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual which has not been established in an episode or movie. Per the talk page, should be moved to a list of references on that page. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 21:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Gvsualan 22:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted --Gvsualan 05:24, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

USS Enterprise-G (17-06-05)Edit

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G) 
The following is from the talk page. However, since nothing has been updated on the page for over 10 days I am going to post it here and go with the below recommendation from SmokeDetector47. (Delete) --Gvsualan 09:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is going to require the inclusion of some heavy duty sources if it is expected to survive. --Gvsualan 01:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Its in the TNG companion which was released after season 5 Jaz 03:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
There's also something about an NCC-1701-7 in the TNG Continuing Mission book... including backstage info as primary sources, and as the only source, can get fairly tricky. I think this information is better relegated to background on either the USS Enterprise-D or TNG pages. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 04:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my comment from 5/28 counts as a vote to delete; just in case it doesn't, this is my official vote. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 21:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Delete as non-canon. Just because there is a unimatrix and a trimatrix, i'm not sure it necessarily or logically follows that there is a bimatrix. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
  • Agreed, Delete. AmdrBoltz 04:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Gvsualan 12:01, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted --Gvsualan 20:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


  • hangover shot? Not the best picture, would be better if replaced with a nice headshot. --Gvsualan 06:25, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. A better shot can be uploaded over this one. Ottens 10:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think we can remove the image altogether. We already have an image of Worf four years younger, and one that shows him in the alternate future of All Good Things, so I doubt this image is necessary at all. Ottens 13:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 18:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Deleted --Gvsualan 10:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Magazine illustrationsEdit

  • delete scan of a ST Mag illus. - I'd prefer for MA to use original illustrations or episodic caps, for copyright reasons. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk
    • Deleted --Gvsualan 10:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diamond, Beryl and Corundum (6-10-05)Edit

  • These are all being drawn out of "Catspaw". I say we either delete them or redirect them to Gemstone. Tyrant 12:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)Tyrant
  • Delete, except Diamond because it is directly referenced in Arena. Ironically it is called the hardest substance known to man when we are told of 2 other substances that are harder, one which had already been mentioned. --TOSrules 04:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps "on Earth" would be better representative of what was intended. --Gvsualan 23:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, I will edit the pages down to "Trek relevant" articles, and in the meantime, I propose and plan to do to following, unless there are any legitimate objections:
Keep diamond, for the above stated reasons, as there are several episodes in Trek referring to diamonds. --Gvsualan 00:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete beryl, the term was never even used in the episode, and sufficed to say it is correct, no one would ever think to search for emeralds via typing in "beryl". Therefore I propose keeping emeralds (which is posted on immediate deletions) and redirecting it to gemstones and getting rid of beryl altogether. There is only one (known) reference to emeralds that I can find in Trek so hence the redirect to gemstones. However, I must note that there are several other items articles based on a single reference that are given their own pages, and yet there is no objection to their existance, why should this be any different? --Gvsualan 00:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete corundum for the same reason mentioned for beryl (term not used on screen) and move its content over to ruby and keep ruby as its own page because there are at least two references to rubies in Trek, which warrants the existance of its own page. --Gvsualan 00:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ruby (gem), Sapphire, EmeraldEdit

  • Ruby (gem), Sapphire - unused redirects. -- Balok 00:59, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)
  • Emerald- unused redirect. -- Balok 19:45, 15 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Al Fadir (6-7-05)Edit

Deleted --Gvsualan 02:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

52005 (6-7-05)Edit

  • 52005: It's a date reference for something called KEO (i think thats the right link) -- which is, nevertheless, non-Trek and non-canon. --Gvsualan 04:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Gvsualan 02:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Individual Dixon Hill character pages (6-07-05)Edit

Nominating the following pages for deletion, since they have been integrated in the Dixon Hill characters page: Gloria, Madeline, Nicky the Nose, Rex, Ruby. Ottens 17:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete AmdrBoltz 17:10, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep why would we want to delete character pages that have individual actors, pictures and such? --Gvsualan 17:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Several other programs have pages for their individual characters, and sometimes very very minor ones. (ie: The Vic Fontaine program) See: Holodeck characters -AJHalliwell 17:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm currently working on Unnamed Dixon Hill characters. There are numerous unnamed characters, and I thought it would make more sense to integrate all characters into one page. Please hold on just five minutes, and the page will be done. Ottens 17:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with AJ. Also, having not yet seen what you are working on...why not present just a page with unnamed characters page (a la Unnamed Romulans, Unnamed Klingons, etc) and keep individual pages -- individual? Otherwise, what you are suggesting is highly unorthodoxed. It would be like us deleting Dimitri Valtane and Lojur's individual pages in favor of placing them on USS Excelsior personnel. --Gvsualan 17:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason for this is that besides their mere existence, usually there's very little to say about these characters. Ottens 18:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, and move the individual character info back to the individual pages. As Gvsualan states, doing something like this isn't proper MA policy unless the characters are unnamed. Also, I think the large number of images on the page breaks up the layout and could also pose a strain on users who have slower connections or older browsers. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 19:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep-- even if there is a list of unnamed characters, there's no reason to deny the named ones their own articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:43, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Kept --Gvsualan 02:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=== Galaxy X class === (05-06-05)

  • Galaxy X class - the information is more or less canon, the name isn't. --Gvsualan 00:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Added inaccurate and deletion boilerplates. AmdrBoltz 01:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. This article really has to go. Ignoring the non-canon name, there is already information on the alternate future Enterprise-D and it is better written. --Scimitar 01:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 01:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
      Deleted --Gvsualan 09:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

===USS Relativity personnel=== (05-06-05) USS Relativity personnel: In my opinion this is overkill. The "list" contains a mere two names which are already included in the USS Relativity page, and ultimately make this article quite redundant, and unnecessary. --Gvsualan 05:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Only two named crewmen appeared in that ep. Pages like this should only exist for ships we have a list of people serving aboard. -AJHalliwell 18:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Even if a roster of unnamed crewman is created, this will still fit nicely as a subsection of USS Relativity. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 16:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed, the info should be moved there in case someone wants to include something about the unnamed crewmembers, such as that weird-looking alien at the helm. Also, we may want to take a look at this page and decide which ships need their own personnel pages, and which can be included on the main ship article... personally, I think the only ships/stations which need a separate personnel page are the primary ones (1701, 1701-A, 1701-D, DS9, Defiant, Voyager, NX-01). Pages like USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) personnel and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) personnel can be easily rolled into their parent articles, and perhaps left as redirects. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 18:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete — unsigned vote
  • DeleteTHOR 20:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted --Gvsualan 01:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

===Star Trek: New Worlds related=== (05-06-05)

=== Sydney === (05-06-05)

  • Sydney - a supposed starship that appeared in "Twilight", that coincidently didn't. --Gvsualan 11:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • The page has been deleted previously (with different content, so cannot be speedied as recreation). The name has not been established (it's supposed to be one of the triangular starships), so should be deleted. -- Michael Warren | Talk 11:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete AmdrBoltz 17:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 19:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Gvsualan 07:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=== Kamar voe === (05-06-05)

  • Kamar voe - The reference to the "USS Manticore" pretty tells us that this is not canon. --Gvsualan 21:47, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Deleted'. --Gvsualan 04:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=== Brig Enterprises === (05-06-05)

delete - not trek --Gvsualan 21:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
deleted --Gvsualan 06:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

File:Coop Job Fair 012.jpgEdit

File:Coop Job Fair 012.jpg - I already reduced the filesize from 400 to 20 KB, but this might be completely unnecessary. Image is not from Star Trek, might even be a copyvio? -- Cid Highwind 19:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not a copyright infridgement, I took the picture myself. It is of Toronto City Hall, which appears in the Iconian Gateway in TNG: Contagion.User: Jaz

Resolved --Gvsualan 06:26, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rosie Malek-Yonan Edit

  • What does this have to do with star trek. It looks like its someones personal site.Jaz 03:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Roman Catholic ChurchEdit

(from talk page)

  • I'd recommend deletion -- just because a Roman church has a mass in the 22nd century, it isnt clear what Christian churches are dominant or even existent at the time, it certainly doesnt give us any reason to define Catholicism, I think that the various references to Christianity should fit under a more central article as the broader faith is the only one mentioned on Trek. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Not realy trek related. Possibly a wiki link, but not on MA.AmdrBoltz 19:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see this kept. It's too long and too non-trek so it needs to be reduced, but as long as it has a reference it should stay. My problem with this also stands for halloween. I'd recommend a solution similar to what I have recently done with neurotransmitter and virus. Which is bring it back to a line or two followed by trek info and a wikipedia link. Tyrant 19:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant
    • I'd also think that because there's a valid reference in the article that it should be kept, so I vote Keep. But at the same time it should be reduced down so that it has a very brief introduction, followed by the Trek reference and a link to the main wiki. But if that is done, I'd like for the reference to the Kai to stay, because that's a pretty good analogy.

Jesster79 20:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

  • DeleteJaz 20:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm still not satisfied that the Roman Catholic Church has been mentioned on Trek. The mass was at a known Catholic Church in Rome -- there hasn't been any corresponding reference that the Roman Catholic Church exists as an organization except that one of their churches was still being used for Christian worship -- one fact doesn't necessarily lead to another. Additionally, it would raise the issue of the necessity of this article -- there's no information besides the mention of a mass, so this article would only duplicate the more appropriate article about that church. Why have two nearly identical articles, one of them based on a supposition, for a one-line mention anyway? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Delete -- Rebel Strike 20:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Deleted --Gvsualan 17:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Rapid Evolutionary Development (...)Edit

Nairobi and Kenya Edit

  • Nairobi and Kenya. There is no actual reference to these places, this is being drawn out of the reference to the University of Nairobi. Tyrant 14:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant
  • Delete AmdrBoltz 20:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep was referred to in context outside of the University reference in the same episode. The article has been corrected accordingly. Delete Kenya. --Gvsualan 05:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Deleted Kenya; Kept Nairobi --Gvsualan 17:51, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Various /temp pagesEdit

  • The following might have been forgotten after copyvio procedure or main page discussions. Check if still necessary, then Delete/Move (vote in the subsections below). -- Cid Highwind 08:14, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Main Page/TempEdit

talk 04:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Main Page/Temp2Edit

Maine Edit

This article has had a deletion message for some time without being listed here. Was it voted on earlier? I'd like to see it be deleted -- unless someone can cite a canon reference. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC).

  • Undecided: Are we keeping record of all the United states, or are we just using ones mentioned directly in trek? AmdrBoltz 19:06, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • We've decided to disinclude real-life places or people that were not mentioned in episodes or films. These are a gray area as starships and colonies have been named after them, but no direct mention of the geographic area itself can be supplied. This is why some American states are unlinked in that list at USA. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:22, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I think they show Maine in on the computer scan in "the Cage". they show a bunch of states, I just don't know which. --TOSrules 21:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I've edited out some links, but i intend to cap The Cage tonight.
Delete, Since no ref can be found I guess I was wrong with The Cage unless someone can find one --TOSrules 03:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Minnesota and Oregon should probably be deleted as well. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 22:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Good source of reference for the USS Portland. -- Lincolnian 23:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all states with no direct references. Indirect ones should not count. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Was Maine shown on the map that was in "Storm Front, Part 1" showing the advancement of the Nazis in the alternate timeline? I know I could make out some of the states. Then again, would that even count since it is an alternate timeline? -- ChiTrek 16:23 (CST)
    • I've checked "The Cage" and there are no clear maps depicting individual states, although the North America landmass is visible in a few. Lets see a cap from Storm Front -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 17:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete, without reference we will just end up having to make pages for every bit of every country. Tyrant 03:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

Speculative Mirror Universe Timeline Edit

  • As the article says itself, all of it is speculative. -- Rebel Strike 16:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • This should be speedy, as recreation of previously deleted material (User:Datalore added the same thing not long ago). -- Michael Warren | Talk 16:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • No I didn't. I added a great essay on the early history of warp, which I now have on my user page. -- Datalore 17:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
    • daaaaleeeeete! -- da capatain a mike
  • Delete (Jaz 17:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete -- Kobi - (Talk) 19:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--Scimitar 00:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, laughable. — THOR 01:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

ISS Enterprise-DEdit

USS Agincourt, USS Krotus (April 17, 2005)Edit

Delete. --Gvsualan

Theme song (January 20, 2005)Edit

  • Theme song - wrong POV perspective for MA, doesn't tell us much that's not already in the individual series pages - perhaps incorporate any new relevant info (such as the lyrics to the TOS theme) into those pages, but this page sticks out like a sore thumb. -- Michael Warren | Talk 23:39, Dec 23, 2004 (CET)
    • Move/merge into the individual series. -- SmokeDetector47 14:41, 27 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete after merging'. However an article about music used in the shows might one day be useful, should we decide on a naming convention. There are tremendous amounts of information about orchestration, props, sets, costumes and series artwork, effects and models that could be tracked under such an article series. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
      • Keep until naming convention can be decided on. I was planning on trying to do what you suggest, but I lacked the information at the point of creating the article. I think there is more than enough info to have one or several articles on the music in Trek. --docdude316 07:47, Jan 8, 2005 (CET)
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:58, Jan 19, 2005 (CET)

Borg children (January 20, 2005)Edit

  • Borg children -- No purposeful content; any possible info can be included in individual character pages or Borg article. -- Harry 00:17, 31 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Might this page be reorganized as a list, with some commentary? It's possible a Voyager viewer could want information on these children, and such a list, appropriately titled, would be a relevant search hit. -- Balok 00:36, 31 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. There's no need to have such a list. Any search for "Borg children" would turn up the relevant articles. -- EtaPiscium 00:41, 31 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Could this be turned into a redirect page pointing towards these characters? -- Josiah Rowe 07:02, 1 Jan 2005 (CET)
    • With some content, this article wouldn't do any harm. Who are they, what's their history, etc.? If someone wants to do this, keep - in it's current form, delete. -- Cid Highwind 12:35, 2005 Jan 2 (CET)
    • Perhaps as a disambiguation. I'd suggest moving this to Neo-natal drones though, since that is what Seven referred to the borg teens that hadnt developed their thoracic plate or whatever (Borg version of chest hair). It'd be a great way to incorporate data about borg youths from unrelated episodes like I, Borg and Q-Who. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:35, Jan 19, 2005 (CET)

Similarities between Nomad and V'ger (January 20, 2005)Edit

  • Similarities between Nomad and V'ger -- This comparison is completely arbitrary. -- EtaPiscium 09:41, 3 Jan 2005 (CET)
    • Arbitrary is in the eye of the beholder. This entire website is arbitrary. The point is that this article contains interesting information that some fans might like. It is worth keeping. The similarities between "The Changeling" and TMP are quite appearent and little talked about. 09:56, 3 Jan 2005 (CET)
      • The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the two are related in any way. And since this site is supposed to be a reference guide, this isn't all that useful since it's about something never mentioned in any series or movie. I wouldn't be opposed to a footnote as per the suggestion below, however. -- EtaPiscium
    • Remove errors, move the rest to the "Background" section of "The Changeling" or TMP, delete this page. -- Cid Highwind 11:58, 2005 Jan 3 (CET)
    • The problem being that this information applies to both "The Changeling" and TMP. Placing it in one and not the other would be incomplete. Placing it in both would be redundant. 22:41, 3 Jan 2005 (CET)
    • Delete, possibly make a note of it in one or both of the article's background sections. -- Harry 16:30, 6 Jan 2005 (CET)
    • Yeah, just put links in both articles with this information. A series of comparative aricles might be possible, but the naming convention would have to be approved by a community consensus first. Delete -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • Deleted -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:58, Jan 19, 2005 (CET)

Uhura's memory wipe (January 20, 2005)Edit

Star Wars (January 20, 2005)Edit

  • Death Star for certain; what of the references in Alderaan? --Gvsualan 04:14, 6 Jan 2005 (CET)
    • Delete. Worth a "Background Information" comment on Alderaan but not all the details. Spartacus 04:51, 6 Jan 2005 (CET) (quite right, forgot to sign -- thanks for the reminder!)
    • Delete Death Star but Keep Alderaan. Alderaan appeared in not one but two pieces of background signage. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:33, 6 Jan 2005 (CET)

Zero-Point Technology (January 20, 2005)Edit

Tharagen (January 20, 2005)Edit

Outposts (January 20, 2005)Edit

  • Outposts -- Plural name is bad style and relevant info already present at outpost, starbase, etc. Images can be moved to appropriate articles. -- Harry 12:37, 8 Jan 2005 (CET)
    • Merge before deleting -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 08:06, 13 Jan 2005 (CET)
    • Deleted. Only useful images transferred, those with better versions already in use listed at IfD. -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:48, Jan 19, 2005 (CET)

Noncorporeal, List of incorporeal species (January 20, 2005)Edit

Boarding party (January 20, 2005)Edit

  • Boarding party -- The term is self-explanitory and the article doesn't say anything useful that's related to Star Trek. -- EtaPiscium 03:18, 9 Jan 2005 (CET)

quotes and terms (January 20, 2005)Edit

New Frontier characters (January 20, 2005)Edit

Li'Seria, IKS K'elric, IKS Voq'leng, IKS K'Ratak (January 5, 2005)Edit

Lorillia, Kamaraazia, ... (January 5, 2005)Edit

  • Lorillia -- Never mentioned in dialogue. I don't believe it's canon. -- EtaPiscium 04:33, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
  • Kamaraazia -- Never mentioned in dialogue. -- EtaPiscium 05:44, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
  • Malorzia, Triaxia, Boratha -- Never mentioned in dialogue. -- EtaPiscium 06:24, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
  • Neethia -- Never mentioned in dialogue. -- EtaPiscium 07:07, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
  • Pyrithia, Kaferia -- Never mentioned in dialogue. -- EtaPiscium 11:16, 22 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Delete. Just because there is a species Lorillians, that doesn't mean there is a planet Lorillia. This is unnecessesarily speculative. For example, Humans and Vulcans don't come from Huma and Vulca, do they? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel
    • Delete unless the author can cite a canon source. -- Balok 01:52, 23 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • Several pages didn't have a proper deletion notice. To be fair, let's wait some more days before deletion proceeds. -- Cid Highwind 13:31, 2004 Dec 29 (CET)
    • Delete. Lorillia is the most promising one, but even there it's speculation. The Lorillians might be from Loril, or from Alpha Yaddayadda III. -- Harry 13:35, 29 Dec 2004 (CET)
    • All deleted. -- Cid Highwind 15:38, 2005 Jan 3 (CET)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+