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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is mostly just a copy from the wiki at memory-alpha.org. If you ignore the first sentence which looks like WP:OR it looks like a list of hybrids in the star trek universe and this could be handled better with a category. Delete Pocopocopocopoco 03:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Though the list has organisational value beyond a category, there are problems in locating sources for such trivia (and using the show would be WP:OR). WP:NOT#INFO is a possible criticism. --Alksub 04:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I agree with everything else you said your statement about OR is incorrect. From WP:OR "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Also from WP:OR "Examples of primary sources include... ...scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs." Finally also from WP:OR Secondary sources are only required when interpretation of the primary source was required. Editors seem to misuse the OR policy to get things deleted. OR should be renamed to Original Idea's or Original concepts, since that is what it blocks. So you see using the show wouldn't be OR it would be source based research. Anyway I would say Clean up to get rid of in-universe style or delete. Viperix 10:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that the term OR is overused. The problem with this particular article is that it comes off as "in-universe OR" if that makes sense. In any event, I can't find anything to suggest that "Hybrid" is a commonly used term within the Trek franchise, or if it is that it warrants an article in the main Wikipedia. If it weren't already stated as being part of Memory-Alpha I'd suggest sending it their way. 23skidoo 14:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-encyclopedic material, with OR and in-universe problems. --Orange Mike 15:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet more Star Trek in-universe garbage. Burntsauce 17:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable SF characters. --Gavin Collins 20:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - science fiction is not inherently non-notable, Gavin. --Orange Mike 15:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am usually not in favor of secondary articles of this sort, but this is sufficiently notable a feature of the series to make a good subject for an article.DGG (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesnt belong here... does belong at memory alpha.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 06:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alkivar, and if kept, then send to WP:CP as Memory Alpha uses a CC license which isn't compatible with the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's no need to send this to WP:CP unless the text is copied from another source. There are no images here, either. 23skidoo 20:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 18:24, 2 October 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.