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 no consensus. The arguments were equally balanced between those who consider that the page fails to demonstrate real world notability and those who regard the article as notable overall. TerriersFan (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This minor fictional topic has no real world notability asserted Ejfetters 03:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense... first Ejf places the PROD tag to ask about notability, and then when an answer is given both in the change summary and on the Talk page, an AfD instead? Isn't that the opposite effect? If the initial question was rhetorical, just AfD it in the first place... Anyway...

• Strong Keep - As said earlier: This particular aspect of Trek encompasses multiple episodes, all of which have individual articles on Wikipedia, but do not completely document this organization of the Trek world. This article is the central repository and center of information regarding this part of Trek and is necessary (and notable) for the impact it has had on the Trek universe in general, in addition to having spawned many books. VigilancePrime 03:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PROD tag was placed because it lacks any "real-world" notability. The article is in-universe, and needs to be primarily "real-world." Placed in AfD because the PROD was removed and other user disagreed with nomination, so this was the next step. I feel if the in-universe information was stripped to bring it up to the real-world standards, there would not be enough real-world information to stand on its own. This article is more suitable for memory alpha instead of Wikipedia for these reasons. Ejfetters 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the in-universe information was reduced drastically in many character and ship pages throughout Wikipedia, but these had enough real-world information to stand alone. Ejfetters 03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article establishes notability. --Brewcrewer 03:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, where is the real-world notability. Ejfetters 04:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: While there isn't any real-world notability (and for this I'd usually lean toward delete) StarTrek is so notable, that it would take an article in a lot worse shape for me to say delete. - Rjd0060 04:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is real-world notability in its consideration as the basis for a Star Trek movie or new franchise, and as the theme for a series of paperback novels. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, being part of the star Trek universe does NOT equal real-world notability. Fails WP:Plot, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. It is just plot summary, with "non-canon" info added in. A whole article is fine for Memory Alpha, but it does not meet the notability requirements for Wikipedia. 05:43, —Collectonian 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that argument, even United Federation of Planets doesn't meet notability, right? I can agree that the article should be deleted, but first it should be merged back into United Federation of Planets then you can proceed to delete it. Let that work happen first before deleting it please! I don't know how to merge it properly, unfortunately. I'm still working on learning how to write for the wiki. Jimmy C. 06:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is no establishment of REAL WORLD notability (claims that there might be the basis of a new movie sometime aside), article is in-universe. Epthorn 09:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: the article just needs some positive reinforcement to improve upon its notability. --LeyteWolfer 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like this can be merged to Starfleet Ejfetters 19:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or barring that, I suppose a merge with Starfleet would be acceptable. The series of paperback novels ( see MA: Star Trek: Section 31) give it some nontrivial real-world significance. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Subjects of novels are just as much in-universe as television shows, or films. Ejfetters (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless referenced with reliable, independent sources. Just because Star Trek is notable, it does not make every plot setting notable. Nuttah (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Starfleet for lack of established real-world notability per WP:FICT. The novels can be used for real-world notability, but I can only see one or two sentences squeezed out of them beyond the mentions, not enough to sustain a whole article. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:45, 11 December 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.