This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Trekmovie.com".
- 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 admin 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
This is a fan website, not an officially endorsed Star Trek/Paramount website. We do not support this type of article. --Alan del Beccio 02:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
Is it possible that we could create a single article about these types of sites, much as we do with "fan films"? --OuroborosCobra talk 02:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I second that... TrekMovie.com has shown to be quite important to Trekdom these days, as can be demonstrated with the Consolation prank at CBS-D.--Kames T Jirk 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- We mustn't forget that this is not "just" another fan website. They repeatedly got exclusive inside information both from the CBS-D guys as well as production staff of Star Trek XI. Surely this is something different from Average Joe's Personal Trek Webpage.
- A good approach might be to check if we're using a page as a reliable first-hand source of information (and I think this has been the case with trekmovie.com). If we do, why not have a page about it? Else, the whole system of "what are resources" might be in desperate need of another consistency check. -- Cid Highwind 11:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I use TrekMovie.com all the time, especially when looking for news updates. In fact, the majority of the news comes from TrekMovie.com, as does the majority of information contained on the Star Trek page. I don't have a problem with giving the site its own page, but I think it should probably be moved to "Trek Movie Report" since that's the name of the site – although there is currently a discussion on whether or not to change the web address as well as the name, since they now report on more than just the upcoming film. Anyways, if we do allow TM to have its own article, we should probably also have a page for the remaining Trek news source, Trek Nation. While Trek Nation certainly isn't as quick in their reports or as up-to-date, they are still one of the top Trek news sources. But I think that should probably be the limit of news sites we accept; if we want any more, then we should probably move this to a page like "Unofficial Star Trek Web Sites" and place other sites there. Just a suggestion. anyways, keep this and let's see how things go from there. --From Andoria with Love 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- While I agree it is important, I second Ouroboros proposal to create a combined article about all (or the most used) non-official newssites in the Internet, where trekmovie.com can get its fair share, so merge with this (admittedly not yet existing) Combined articles (Internet News Sites?) Kennelly 21:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I use TrekMovie.com all the time, especially when looking for news updates. In fact, the majority of the news comes from TrekMovie.com, as does the majority of information contained on the Star Trek page. I don't have a problem with giving the site its own page, but I think it should probably be moved to "Trek Movie Report" since that's the name of the site – although there is currently a discussion on whether or not to change the web address as well as the name, since they now report on more than just the upcoming film. Anyways, if we do allow TM to have its own article, we should probably also have a page for the remaining Trek news source, Trek Nation. While Trek Nation certainly isn't as quick in their reports or as up-to-date, they are still one of the top Trek news sources. But I think that should probably be the limit of news sites we accept; if we want any more, then we should probably move this to a page like "Unofficial Star Trek Web Sites" and place other sites there. Just a suggestion. anyways, keep this and let's see how things go from there. --From Andoria with Love 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- In which case we'd still need to define which of all webpages that call themselves "Internet News Sites" we consider important/reliable/necessary enough to warrant inclusion in that article - or else we'd quickly end up with a pretty useless list of third-class pages that mostly just copy "news" from each other. I don't think there are that many of them, so individual articles instead of a short list (+redirects, probably) may still be the better alternative. -- Cid Highwind 16:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Admin resolution
Article kept. --From Andoria with Love 04:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)