- If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
- If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
- If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".
In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
Deletion rationale Edit
This could apply to several recent articles, but I'll start here.
No canon reference. If you can see Ottawa on the map provided, you have better glasses than I do. We need more than the fact that we know its exists(which, in some cases, we don't) based on an illegible map that appeared for less than a couple of seconds to create an article.--31dot 11:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Delete all articles in question.– Airtram3 13:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
keep- as long as these names can be desciphered from an on-screen map, they are canon. Even if, as I suspect, material that was not on screen (i.e. real maps) was used to help deduce what the small blobs of text must be. There's plenty of precedent for that; Bad Day at Red Rock, John Whorfin, Starfleet Dental,... I also don't buy the argument that lots of tiny articles about small cities just existing are useless, first of all MA strives for completeness, even in obscure details (Trianium particle, Rigellian ox, Nicole, Sector 37628...), and secondly it is valuable to know that these cities still exist in the 23rd century, with unexpected things like Los Angeles and Leningrad going on - Capricorn 23:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - none of these can be clearly seen at all. Vancouver for instance may not be the name. They're only making an assumption that it's still named Vancouver because it happens to be in the same place. — Morder 23:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment- Try to find Ottawa on the map within the article. I don't even see a dot, let alone the name. That's the case with several of these new articles. I don't advocate deleting all of them- just the ones which are impossible to see. We should keep Newfoundland, for example, as it is identifiable.--31dot 00:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- And as Morder said, we don't even know that these places are still called that in the future, as the map offered as proof is an old one.--31dot 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - The Cage will be released on Blu-ray in a few months, the box will feature the episode with the original effects (and therefore the maps) as well, giving us the best possible look at them. If one really can make out names on that map, meaning one can decipher the actual sequence of letters, we could create articles for that. If however, it's still just blobs which cannot clearly be read, we shouldn't create articles. Imagine St. Peterburg is depicted on that map, because we can see a black line next to a dot where it's supposed to be. We don't know if the name is "Leningrad", "Petrograd" or "St. Peterburg", all different names for the same city at different times. Creating articles for one of the names would be speculation (Yes, I know we've already got Leningrad). For the moment I'd say, stop creating more articles like that and wait until the Blu-rays are released. Delete those articles where it's clear that nothing will be legible, even on Blu-ray. Even islands, where you can at least distinguish characteristics silhouettes, might be renamed in the future. As we don't know when this map is from, this is all speculation. --Jörg 04:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced that these are necessary. Trivial is good when you can tell a story about it, or it fits the scene, but this is breaking down a map from a video collage, where the map is the focus, not so much the contents. Wendy's is obviously an example of trivial...but what this discussion is about is comparable to an article about the "Wendy"-character herself. I'm not in favor of turning MA into an "Earth wiki" where one spends 95% of their time wading through dozens of references that say "this reference was pointlessly seen on some map that was scanned by the Talosians" compared to something of actual noteworthiness...or at least of trivial interest. If the name sticks out fine...and it works with an existing article about that place/thing/person fine, but making an effort to make it stick out, no thank you. We have hundreds of other red links to write about before we need to start scraping the bowl like this. --Alan 04:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- convinced by Jörg's argument i'll retract my keep and support his proposal. Though I'm still strongly opposed to Alan's argument that these references, if legible, might still be irrelevant. Articles like this will hardly ever "swamp" 95% of the encyclopedia, and having more pressing red links is also not an argument for not creating articles on obscure but canon subjects -- Capricorn 13:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Admin resolution Edit
Deleted as not visible in canon. If it is later possible to see these or other similar places(through Blu-ray, for example) these can be restored.--31dot 15:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)