The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. CitiCat ^♫ 04:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Weapons of the Star Fleet Universe[edit]

Capital Weapons of the Star Fleet Universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The opening line of this article almost declares itself to be a POV fork from Star Trek. What follows is a lot of non-notable original research best described as fancruft. --Gavin Collins 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Explanation though. Star Fleet Universe != Star Trek (that's "does not equal" for those who don't recognize the symbol). The article is information that is derived from the sourcebooks for Star Fleet Universe, of which there is a great deal. It is not WP:POV or WP:OR as you claim, but rather just has zero sources. Now, with regards to your claims of WP:Fiction and WP:Fancruft.

WP:Fancruft is an essay, not policy. However, it is a good essay, and I would advice any editor working on a SFU article spinoff to read it.

WP:Fiction you may have something. As far as I can see, this is the only argument that is valid for this proposed AfD.

I hope this explains a bit about the problem encountered when you deal with other editors. Turlo Lomon 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or weak merge/redirect. Without significant real world information, this level of fictional detail is not justified. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete presents game-guide style information with no discernible commentary or analysis whatsoever. WP:NOT#PLOT Eleland 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a little and redirect. This is definitely over-detailed and unreferenced... a short summary of the topic in the main Star Fleet Universe article would probably suffice. Of course, as with all these nominations, WP:POV does not apply, as has been explained repeatedly ([1], [2]). Pinball22 15:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 09:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.