Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omega Octant

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. Sandstein 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Octant

Fictional area in Star Trek rpg spin-off Star Fleet Universe. I argue that while SFU is most definitely notable, an area within it is not. See also some related AfDs:

Plrk (talk) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources establish the notability of these subjects (rather than the notability of the ST rpg system itself). Protonk (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non-canon -- 195.92.206.244 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability presented, no 3rd party sources present. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of citations to reliable, third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect Has had a long enough time to prove the existance of sources to satisfy core policies and guidelines like WP:V, WP:OR, WP:N and WP:NOT#PLOT, and still no-one coming to its defense is quite detrimental. A vage interpretation of one sentence of WP:5P in ignorance of the following sentences doesn't cut it for me. – sgeureka ^t•c 20:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-universe plot information of a non-notable topic. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is unoriginal research (does not advance a thesis) and WP:JNN is a subjective and inaccurate "reason" for deletion. especially given the totally disputed nature of the notability guideline. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, game guide material with no assertion of real-world notability. --Stormie (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article is notable to [1] and [2]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of them assert any notability through reliable sources, and any detail can be discussed in the plot section of the main Star Fleet Universe article.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, then why not merge and redirect? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably merge with other locations in the fiction. That's such an obvious solution that I keep getting amazed both at the people who want to keep these as separate articles, and the people who want to remove them entirely. More compromises=less contention and work at Afd=more time for writing and improving articles. If GRC wants to compromise, surely we should encourage him. DGG (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2008 (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.