Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

Template:Vfd

Fan publications

• Who's Who in Star Trek (book)
• The Physics of Star Trek
• To Seek Out New Life: The Biology of Star Trek
• Life Signs: The Biology of Star Trek
• The Best of Trek

These are non-Paramount licensed books. Other such books are collected on the Fan publications page, so, these should logically be merged into that page. There are likely more, but these are the ones that I've come across to date. -- Sulfur 18:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

These are not truly "fan" publications as they are published by reputable publishers (at least those I am familiar with). I am unclear why Paramount licensing is the touchstone for inclusion in the database. I would say, for those published by major publishing houses (not paid for by the author him or herself, in other words) to Keep. Aholland 02:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If not to merge/delete, and to keep as is, it might be an idea to perhaps create some sort of identification that they are "non-licensed" items, or at least non-Paramount. I'm also not saying that we should only have Paramount licensed items here, but that we should at least distinguish between "official" stuff, and not-quite "official" stuff. -- Sulfur 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

They may not be officially licensed, but unlike fan films and the like, these books were published by official, professional publications. I think we should either keep these or, if that's not good, then move them to a list for unofficial publications or something. --From Andoria with Love 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hrm... I see the points brought up here. Perhaps a category of unofficial publications (or something as such) could be created and used to indicate these non-licensed, but still published items. -- Sulfur 03:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep, and I can think of a couple other ones that would be on this list and just don't have pages yet that I've seen in book stores ("The Religion of Star Trek", and maybe those trivia books? Actually those may be liscenced, I'm not sure.) - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fermion

Fermion

• Delete -- uncited. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless someone can find a reference for it. I haven't been able to find one myself. --From Andoria with Love 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --OuroborosCobra ^talk 03:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, though if someone wants to check TNG: "The Next Phase" it might be worth a look. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 01:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Verdens Gang

Uncited and orphaned. --Alan del Beccio 21:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete no cite, orphaned, and as far as I can tell it does not exist in Star Trek. Also, the creator's IP address indicates that he is located in Norway himself. Coincidence? ;-) --OuroborosCobra 22:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. --From Andoria with Love 01:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Livingstone

This article title is misspelled, the fish was Livingston. Also, there is already an article on Picard's fish, located at Livingston (fish). The article is also now orphaned --OuroborosCobra 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• wouldn't it be easier to just turn it into a redirect rather than listing it here?--152.163.101.14 20:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think so. Nothing links to it, and it is a misspelling to begin with. I don't see the need to create a redirect for something that is orphaned and misspelled. I still say delete. --OuroborosCobra 21:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Why can't this just be speedy deleted?--152.163.101.14 04:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It can be, at the time that I nominated it, I did not know how to do that. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, in case it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (though it probably does.) - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Deleted. Now go away, ya bother me. :-P --From Andoria with Love 01:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

IKS Vor'cha

This should have been deleted along with IKS K't'inga and IRW D'deridex and I am quite frankly surprised to still see it here. As the page clearly states:

"Although the Vor'cha itself was never seen or mentioned, we can infer that it existed based on Klingon Empire's practice of naming a ships class after the prototype."

There is no evidence to support this. --Alan del Beccio 17:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. --From Andoria with Love 17:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Sounds like there was already a debate on this that I missed, but the only evidence of naming like this I know of is for Federation ships, not Klingon (with the sole exception of the IKS Negh'Var of course). --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • As I stated, there is no evidence that the Klingons do this-- the Negh'Var was never called a prototype, it was simply the new flagship-- hence Negh'Var type vs. Negh'Var class. The Enterprise-D was the new flagship at one time and it was never a prototype of its class. --Alan del Beccio 18:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I said, I missed that whole debate. Thanks for setting me straight. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Jörg 11:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Klingon language - babel category/templates

Category:User tlh, Template:User tlh-0, Template:User tlh-1, Template:User tlh-2, Template:User tlh-3, Template:User tlh-4

• I may be wrong, but I don't recall a discussion on the creation of this category. --Alan del Beccio 03:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think this has already been deleted before, possibly making this a candidate for immediate deletion. In any case, delete. -- Cid Highwind 11:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. - AJ Halliwell 17:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 'em all. --From Andoria with Love 01:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Katarus

As the article so blatantly points out, it's "APOCRYPHAL". Delete. --From Andoria with Love 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Also, might want to tell the anon who created it to not remove the mark for deletion. I've restored it. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep