Memory Alpha
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
57,146
pages

Changes: Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion

Back to page
View source
(Darth Vader)
Line 223: Line 223:
 
*'''Delete''' for aforementioned reasons.--[[User:Scimitar|Scimitar]] 23:07, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  
*'''Delete''' for aforementioned reasons.--[[User:Scimitar|Scimitar]] 23:07, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 
*I would write the Vader article, say he lived on [[Caldos colony]] and then say he was named for Darth Vader. [[User:Tough Little Ship|Tough Little Ship]] 23:14, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  
*I would write the Vader article, say he lived on [[Caldos colony]] and then say he was named for Darth Vader. [[User:Tough Little Ship|Tough Little Ship]] 23:14, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  +
* Yeah better '''Detele!''' Completely not Star Trek. [[User:Benjrh|Benjrh]] 23:45, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:45, 31 July 2005

Template:Vfd


Starbase 134

Starbase 134
Might be an unintentional duplicate of Starbase 174. I don't have the Okudagram of the starship mission status chart handy, but most of the references on MA imply that the Hood was at Starbase 174. Could there have been a dedication plaque of a ship that was built here? As far as I know, Starbase 134 was mentioned only in the Tech Manuals, and the information should be moved to those pages then deleted from the main content. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:28, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect to Starbase 174. The only mention of it was on a slightly altered version of the Starship Mission Status, that showed up in the Star Trek: Captain's Chair computer game. For the image, see: Here, next to the USS Hood. So no, it's not canon. -AJHalliwell 23:51, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - we really need to hash out which mission status display is correct and systematically go through each ship/base mentioned on it and double check accuracy, seeing that this is the second time this week we have encountered this problem. --Gvsualan 00:20, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Here: (THE NON CANON ONE IS IN COLOR) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk

http://captainmike.org/Stuff/displayjkl1.gif

Oh wow, the sectors look different. That'll be fun to diffuse. -AJHalliwell 06:27, 10 Jul 2005 (UTC)
So according to the canon image, the USS Trieste is not a Merced class, but a Yosemite class?? --Alan del Beccio 23:24, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the second one isn't canon either AFAICT. As you can see on that screenshot, the real deal is a crossbreed of both displays. I'm inclined to say that the display [1] from the Technical Manual-CD is the correct one, so I'm gonna vote for Keep.
Agreed, where'd you get the second one Captain, cause I'm questioning its canonitity to. The first one we at least have an idea where it's from. (not saying we're gonna use it) - AJHalliwell 20:01, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The second display is from Rick Sternbach & Mike Okuda's portfolio for TNG Season 2 & 3 as published in excerpt in Star Trek: The Next Generation Magazine (from Starlog) #10 (1990). The graphics were mostly reprinted there in blue on white background, not the colors they were displayed in on the series. The color one was completely redone at a much later date (1994), for a non-canon publication called Star Trek: Captain's Chair. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 00:59, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Anyone like the joke in the top image on the fourth line from bottom where its says "Diplomatic Mission to Aldaraan". As in a a joke to all the Star Wars people out there I suppose. Thats cracked my up atleast and yes i checked the spelling--Kahless 02:46, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
ALso at a glance that line is the only one that is different bewtween the two.-- Kahless 02:48, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Alderaan already exists here. Besides, that wouldnt be the first time Star Trek (almost) used a Star Wars reference: Skywalker Division, ISS Avenger, Kashyk and Botha. --Alan del Beccio 07:50, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Any chance we can wrap this up? It's been three weeks. --Alan del Beccio 07:53, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • This needs to be moved somewhere until all the minute points can be worked out. But as for actual Starbase 134, since both of the ones we're taking as canon agree on that mark, you can probably delete it now. -- <unsigned>

Tungsten-cobalt-magnesium

Tungsten-cobalt-magnesium
References solely from Star Trek: The Next Generation Interactive Technical Manual, which has been previously agreed upon to not be a valid enough of a source for a solitary article. Perhaps mentioning them individually in each of tungsten, cobalt and magnesium might be more suitable. --Alan del Beccio 06:57, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Rakelli

Rakelli
Non-canon, source cited from video game. --Alan del Beccio 21:55, 25 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Rapid Nadion Effect

Rapid Nadion Effect
This page is admitted speculation. When created, the user stated the article was a "Hypothesis of what is the Rapid Nadion Effect based on hard science." As such, there are no citations, either. Should either be edited with canon, non-speculative info or deleted. --Shran 18:47, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Bayer name

Bayer name

Was "Bayer name" said in the episode? Cause it's only listed in the "Background info" at This Side of Paradise, and while it does list a little trek info, I'm thinking this is a real science term which wasn't used in Star Trek. - AJHalliwell 01:28, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Discovery

Discovery
Another real life science something, that has never been mentioned or referenced in Star Trek. We deleted MIR and the Hubble recently, I assume this falls under the same criteria. - AJHalliwell 08:57, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. Delete. --Shran 12:37, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Delete. — THOR 14:04, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Delete.-Kahless 20:50, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Qa'vak

Suggestion made by anonymous user. Please log in before voting here. -- Cid Highwind 23:20, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Qa'vak This article has no text. It has all been deleted because of a copyright infingment. I don't even know what it's supposed to be about. What is Qa'vak anyway? Delete 27, July 2005 User:Tobyk777

  • Restore- I remember this game the page should be restored - Kahless 04:42, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it would be much easier if we just do as the page says and follow proper copyright violation procedures, as this page is already posted on the proper page for this type of thing: Memory Alpha:Possible copyright infringements. As well, the procedures for this are clearly stated, and why this was ever posted here is beyond me. --Alan del Beccio 08:52, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Ferengi philosophy

Ferengi philosophy
  • This article seems redundent and unnesscary-Kahless 04:17, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I think that this is just incomplete Keep Tobyk777 05:46, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC) 05:41, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
From talk page:
  • I would say this single sentence is pretty obvious and already stated several times on the main Ferengi page. Either turn it into a complete article, or delete it. --Malimar 21:08, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Agree, its not even as robust as the Ferengi History page. Delete Logan 5 20:28, 14 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Shran 00:42, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • delete --Alan del Beccio 05:10, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Rules of Aquisition

Rules of Aquisition
  • I disagree. I think that the 2 articles whould be the excat same. If someone were to want to find a list of the rules how would they know wheather to type in "Rules of Aquisition" or "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition"? I think that the text of the article should be deleted, then the text from Ferengi Rules of Acquisition should be copied and pasted to the other article. That way, they both have a nice layout, and people can find the rules more easily. Tobyk777 05:48, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • That would be a waste of space, we have a way of turning "Rules of Acquisition " into a "Redirect", or when ever someone types that in, it would automatically transfer them to "Ferengi Rules of Acquisition". Not that it applies in this case, as Acquisition is spelled wrong, and Rules of Acquisition is already a page. Delete. - AJHalliwell 01:43, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • ALso I believe many of the rules are from non-canonsources since the teo lsits do not match and their are no citations for each one. It might have been also a copyright infrindgement for we dont knwo where the list comes from, and since their are no citations some might be made up by the original author, i vote for a deletion of this page --Kahless 02:22, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Section

Section
Source is non-canon, plus I don't even recall this information being in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual. --Shran 03:52, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • In the Tech manual they seem to be called "Sectors". On the show however, they are often referred to as sections. There are a good number of references to Sections though. (Voyager's astrometrics in "Equinox, Part II") Although I think it contains some mistakes. While the manual says Ten Forward was Deck 10, section 36, didn't "Power Play" say deck 10, section 1? I'm neutral as of now. - AJHalliwell 04:01, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
    • I honestly have no idea, pink skin. However, as much as I love the TNG Tech Manual, it is a non-canon source and so the article should either be rewritten to contain valid, canon info or deleted. --Shran 04:06, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Handball

Handball
IP created page, no pages interally link to it, appears to be non-Trek. --Alan del Beccio 05:56, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Shran 02:17, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • This appears to be the game from "Suddenly Human", does this have a page yet? I think this may just need cleaning up. I'm gonna say...Keep, if it's found that they are the same thing. - AJHalliwell 02:29, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Power transfer grid

Power transfer grid
Evidently a Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual cited article with no citable links to any episodes. --Alan del Beccio 06:42, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is mentioned in many TNG and VOY episodes. More than I can remember. [[66.245.25.3 15:48, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)]]
  • agreed to keep -- simply search scripts for "power transfer" references - -you'll get tons of canon (which is based on the Tech Manual) -- and some episodes probably have info not contained in the tech manual whjich can be added -- does this qualify for PNA?--Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:06, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Starfleet Command School

Starfleet Command School
I don't think I've ever heard of this. Does it even exist? Has it even been mentioned? It is uncited, unformatted, and it's probably nothing more than fan fiction. --Shran 20:51, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Janeway mentioned it at some point, I just dont recall with point. It may have been during her reference that went something like: 'One thing you learn in Command School is 'When in warp flight there is no left or right'.' -- or something like that. I dont recall the episode however. --Alan del Beccio 21:37, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Nope, it's from the ep Parallax. To quote our intrepid captain:
"In command school, they taught us to always remember that manoeuvring a starship is a very delicate process. But over the years, I've learned that sometimes you just have to punch your way through."
As for my vote... the article needs to be neatened up and have this quote worked in. So, I abstain for now. --Brad Rousse 23:20, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I've edited the article to include only known canon information and now vote to keep. If any other details on this subject have been revealed on-screen, please add it. --Shran 02:31, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC) I do recommend, however, that it be moved to Command School. --Shran 04:37, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I think it should remain Starfleet Command School, just to differentiate from any other species/governments, in much the same way Starfleet Medical Academy isn't Medical Academy. --Alan del Beccio 16:15, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Its mentioned in the Interplay Game... "StarFleet Academy". It is a devision of Starfleet Academy where top level cadets learn "the grave responsibilities of Command". Sulu was made Chief of Command school (in the game) before taking command of the U.S.S. Excelsior. I know this is technically non-canon. But it is a reference. benjrh 07:15, 30 Jul 2005 (EST)
    • Unfortunately, we cannot use this information in the article, at least not in the main part. An apocrypha section can be added, though. --Shran 00:40, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
      • Well... Perhaps it should be made a small reference on the Starfleet Academy page. But if Captain Janeway said it on screen then it does have a right to be here. But it is not a school seperate from the Academy, simply a division of it. Benjrh 11:06, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • keep "Starfleet Command School" proven canon, also vote for similar naming as "Starfleet Medical Academy" -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:58, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

US Space Command

US Space Command
The information on this page has been proven inaccurate, and unless another source can be found for it, it doesn't belong here. --Shran 21:24, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • NO to delection. Sir, you have insulted me and I demand satisfaction. How is it inaccurate? You've proven nothing! What are your sources? You're saying I'm a liar? The section on the badges/patches is highly notable in the least. --WehrWolf 21:33, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete : This information may be accurate in "the real world", but has not been proven to be accurate or canon in the "Star Trek universe". How do we know that the US Space Command existed in the Star Trek universe? We don't, as it has never been cited. Therefore we cannot assume that is existed in that universe as it does in our own unless there has been some on screen indication that is has. --Alan del Beccio 21:39, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
That is one of the silliest things I've ever read. --WehrWolf 21:42, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
However, it is within the guidelines of the community's mission. Real life information is the realm of Wikipedia, and we link to them whenever this type of information is required. Please see Memory Alpha:Canon policy for more. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:20, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the "This is one of the silliest things I ever read" comment; referring to the page that is. - AJHalliwell 02:21, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and move the information about the insignia similarities and origins to United States armed forces or USA (in a background section, as it is not information derived from any canon episode.
As you can see from the accompanying talk pages, the archivists involved have a basic misunderstanding of the policies of Memory Alpha -- We are not allowed to theorize who was in command of anything in the Star Trek storyline if it was not mentioned somewhere in the Trek storyline, i.e a canon film or episode. I'm not sure if this constitutes our policy pages bein "silly" reading -- they are designed to make sure that the contributors to the wiki stay within the parameters of this page's design. Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:30, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete content not proven canon -- Kobi - (Talk) 13:59, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:US Space Command

As an Air Force colonel, I can vouch that the article is factually accurate. (155) 29 July 05

I have no question as to the accuracy -- but I have to question the relevance if the Space Command was never mentioned on Star Trek -- beyond the homage present in the insignia. perhaps other archivists have views on this? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 19:04, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I dont recall it being mentioned in the reference cited. --Alan del Beccio 20:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The inaccuracy notice is because this article mentions the space Command in relation to the Phoenix in Star Trek: First Contact -- but the US Space Command was not at all mentioned in First Contact. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:05, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Nitrogen wasn't mentioned either, but an atmosphere consisting mostly of it was everywhere in the movie. All US missile sites belong to US Space Command, whether mentioned or not. Please note it was called "old" US Space Command missile site, indicating that Space Command no longer operated it. --User:WehrWolf 21:16, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia's excellent article on Star Trek:First Contact establishes that there is only one missile base in Montana; it's Malmstrom AFB. And wouldn't you know it, it's a base under the command and control of US Space Command. [2]
The startrek.com website describes the site as being in central Montana - I just looked at a map and it doesn't get more central than Malmstrom AFB. [3]
However, several Enterprise episodes have established that the complex was in Bozeman, which is about 125 miles from Malmstrom. [4] -- SmokeDetector47 // talk
Yes, but let me explain how a missile base works: the main base contains the command and control functions, and the dependent missile sites are dispersed in the countryside for a radius of several hundred miles. These sites are accessed for shift changes (shifts are several days long) by helicopter. The reason they are dispersed, is so an enemy attack on any of them will not destroy all of them. --User:WehrWolf 22:00, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
But is there a missile base in Bozeman? Under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom? Regardless, this is still very much speculation and should be confined to background notes in an appropriately-titled article, as mentioned in the VfD. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:08, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The word is site, rather than base, and the exact location of missile sites are classified. I'm sure the Russians and the Chinese know where they all are though. The key thing is that any missile site in central Montana would be under the jurisdiction of Malmstrom AFB --User:WehrWolf 23:13, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'm not arguing against any of your points any missile base or site in Montana today would be under the jurisdiction of the Space Command. This is not in question.

Do you have the knowledge to tell me what is going to happen in Montana in 2006? or 2016? Can you guarantee that Malmstrom is going to exist in its current state in 2036? and that the Space Command will be administrated exactly the same way in 2046?

Assuming that the answer is "no" and you cannot foresee the future, I'd ask why you think it is necessary to make broad assumptions like this. This would risk our articles becoming completely uninformative if they contained so much speculation rather than what Memory Alpha was designed to be: A repository of data about what happened and was mentioned on Star Trek.

None of this has been mentioned on Star Trek.

Let me draw a parallel: In 1945 there was no US Air Force. A writer in 1945 would write about the US Army Air Corps, because he would be completely unaware that in later decades there would be a USAF created.

So that writer would be wrong by using undue speculation to write about the 1980s exploits of the US Army Air Corps. Just as I think it is completely erroneous to speculate that the US Space Command of 2005 might be the same organization in 2050 when WWIII starts, or that a Montana AFB would even be there in 2050, let alone trying to make assumptions about what its role is in WWIII

Please try to limit the contributions here to things that are relevant to Star Trek without making all of these assumptions.-- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:34, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Votes for deletion

Wikipedia's excellent article on Star Trek:First Contact establishes that there is only one missile base in Montana; it's Malmstrom AFB. And wouldn't you know it, it's a base under the command and control of US Space Command. [5]--WehrWolf 22:32, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)

But again, this is the real world and not the Star Trek universe. Who's to say that there weren't other missile bases constructed during World War III, or that there weren't more bases in the Trek universe? It's quite clear that "our" reality is totally different from the history established in the Trek reality, i.e. there were no Khans or DY-100s or multiple Voyager probes. That said, some of the article could probably be moved to something more descriptive, like missile complex (Montana) or missile complex (Phoenix). -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 22:45, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but it's a 20th century missile, rather than a 21st century missile - ergo a 20th century missile base. WehrWolf 22:47, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
The Phoenix was built from a Titan V, which doesn't even exist in reality so it's impossible to know when the missiles were introduced. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 23:01, 29 Jul 2005 (UTC)
However, the Phoenix page says "The missile type the Phoenix is constructed from comes from the Star Trek Fact Files, and as such, should not be treated as canonical." The missile that it most closely resembles is a Titan II, and the Titan V could easily be an upgrade. [6]

Europa

Europa

No trek relevance. - AJHalliwell 09:14, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree I dont see how this could related to trek, or sci-fi--Kahless 09:36, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Delete --Shran 00:31, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -66.245.25.3 02:36, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

User:Gul Reid

I'm leaving MA and I don't want to take up posthumus space.Gul Reid 16:00, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I see that this is already being deleted (although it's not an "immediate deletion" candidate, I guess), but I think that these pages should not just be deleted (reasons follow if neccessary, I just don't have the time right now). I suggest to (blank and) protect instead. -- Cid Highwind 16:16, 30 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I really didn't figure we had to vote on somebodies decision to leave ;) I did however blank it and protect it. --Alan del Beccio 05:10, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
No, we don't have to vote on that - but I think that we shouldn't remove it without comment, either. First, it isn't really necessary to delete the page at all, second, the user might want to return at some point in the future, third, we want to protect that users' page (and the talk page) from editing if the user isn't there to see it, fourth, there might still be something of interest to the rest of us on those pages and fifth, I really don't want to see any more User: pages in the list of wanted pages. :) -- Cid Highwind 10:58, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
In all fairness, I did mention that it was a user requested deletion -- and he did want it deleted so that it didn't take up space, that much is clear. Deleting it is the only way to fulfill such a request, no? --Alan del Beccio 18:07, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
This is the first time such a request has been made, so this discussion might better be moved to Memory Alpha talk:Deletion policy or something - let's not concentrate on these specific two pages. The most important question I see are:
  1. Do we want any user page to simply disappear (leading to many broken links to User:X) and
  2. Does a user have the right to request the deletion of comments made by others (regarding User Talk:X)?
Disk space is irrelevant here, because even deleted pages and their respective histories are kept somewhere (for possible later undeletion)... -- Cid Highwind 18:20, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Herbivore

Herbivore
  • Aside from being inaccurate, and not linked to...actually, forget that, that's enough for deletion. Sisko's restaurant serves cooked tube grubs (or was going to), and we know some cooks still use real ingredients (Sisko cooked w/real ing., Riker did in some TNG season 2 episode, Neelix see:All). - AJHalliwell 02:58, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- I think this is a canidate for imeadiate deletion since nothing form the article is correct at all, it doesn't even talk about herbivores, and is also false in that humans dont eat meat. Delete now and save our souls. -- Kahless 04:33, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • So dramatic. However, I do think that the article has a degree of merit and think it should be made into a Pna as I can see part of the authors p.o.v. coming from a line in "Lonely Among Us". Additionally, the term herbivore aptly applies to Vulcans and was widely spoken of in "The Slaver Weapon". My vote is to keep. --Alan del Beccio 05:10, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Alan bring up a guess a good point, and yes i felt like bieing in a a dramatic mood, I mean since it usually the same people doing everything, like voting, minor edits and such we might as well get to have soem fun together. The next part should maybe be in the talk section if we hold of deletion for a major re-write.
Back to buiness well first off i dont believe all humans are vegetarians, or that they are herbavores. Actually with replicators i dont believe Omnivore or Carnivor apply also. Now this would apply to someone who has been fed of replicators since birth. In the case of Sicko's i remeber him saying all ingredients were non-replicated which means humasn are still omnivores if they partake in the food.
Over all, the point or replicatos in an interesting one and should be explored though lack of canon information on replicators might be a problem so for nwo i am putting a hold pending review for me vote --Kahless 05:32, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I see, and appreciate this point. But I would suggest this information be put at Vegetarian, as a Herbivore is a creature that can only eat plants, where-as "Carbon Creek" showed that in an emergency, Vulcan's would eat Venison. - AJHalliwell 05:49, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
However, a human who is put in a position of being forced to eat another human to survive doesnt make them cannibals, it means they were forced to turn to cannibalism, rather than die. Likewise can be said about the Vulcans in "Carbon Creek", they were forced to eat meat, rather than die. Although I am not opposed to the more p.c. term "vegetarian", the term "herbivore" was clearly used to describe Spock in "The Slaver Weapon" and they most likely should be merged. --Alan del Beccio 06:05, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I thought TAS was not canon, especially since Gene Roddenbury would roll over in his grave if it was ever made so--Kahless 06:08, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Not this tired old debate again. TAS is canon. Period. --Alan del Beccio 18:05, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Earth Languages

English, French

I'm posting this here because I've noticed several links to real current-day Earth languages around MA, and they're usually de-linked. I want to confirm for future record, that these are to be removed. Or maybe the creation of one page for "Human languages"? Personally, I prefer our current policy of none. - AJHalliwell 09:22, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Indian Sub-Continent, Bangladesh, Pakistan

Indian Sub-Continent, Bangladesh, Pakistan
Found marked for deletion but not posted here, so I've added them as I agree with the assessment. Not cited, nor do they appear to have any true Trek value. --Alan del Beccio 18:33, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all. --Shran 18:45, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Darth Vader
another page marked for deletion but not posted here. Obviously not Trek. However, it could be moved to Vader, an 'in-joke' name found on a gravestone in "Phantasms", mostly likely named after the Darth. --Alan del Beccio 18:39, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or move to Vader and rewrite. --Shran 18:44, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I see no relevance here.-Platypus222 21:30, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for aforementioned reasons.--Scimitar 23:07, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I would write the Vader article, say he lived on Caldos colony and then say he was named for Darth Vader. Tough Little Ship 23:14, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah better Detele! Completely not Star Trek. Benjrh 23:45, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms