Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trilithium

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trilithium was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus, more keeps than merges—article kept. Cool Hand Luke 19:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fictional material, non-notable Deus Ex 18:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fancruft (though as it is Star Trek fancruft it will be an uphill battle to get it removed in all likelihood). Indrian 18:45, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Improv 18:59, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to dilithium. —No-One Jones (m) 19:00, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge/redir to dilithium. It isn't even linked from any Star Trek article--only link is from Fictional chemical substance. Niteowlneils 19:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, why not? [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 19:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note: rant follows. What possible reason could there be for deleting this, yet keeping dilithium? They're separate materials, and it makes no sense to cram the two together just to satisfy some notion that, if we decrease the number of Star Trek articles, they'll disappear or be less prominent. Why people want to purge WP of everything they label "fancruft" is beyond me entirely--as long as it's from a decently notable work, clearly labeled as fictional, and well-written, how on earth does this material harm Wikipedia? But I accept that some people want to eliminate such material, and, while I disagree, I can respect that (if not understand their motivation; I'd love a good explanation). HOWEVER: What purpose is served by merging this with dilithium? If we're going to have articles on fictional metals, we should; there's no use trying to stuff 10 pounds of this material into a 5-pound article. The two articles together would probably be less useful; there are times (episode summaries, e.g.) when one would want to link to trilithium without having to scroll through dilithium. Apologies to any I may have offended, but this is quite inexplicable to me. Peace profound, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:02, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
    • What possible reason could there be for deleting this, yet keeping dilithium? Because Trilithium is something that was invented for one film (and mentioned ocasionally subsequently), and dilithium is something that has been used since TOS and must be mentioned in the Warp drive article. I am not opposed to deleting the bulk of the Star Trek article, but I think this oversteps the mark. Deus Ex 23:58, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If a modern Library of Alexandria was build, nearly all the information stored in it would be junk. No point nitpicking, I think we should be letting more stuff like this stay in, there are some people who would find it notable and interesting even if you don't. Ok, rant over... for now. Darksun 21:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • The issue is not whether it is interesting or not. The question is whether it should be in an encyclopedia or not. I do like Star Trek and like reading about it, but I want to do so at a fansite devoted to the subject, not a site trying to be a reputable encyclopedia of knowledge (which is generally supposed to be geared to the human experience in our reality and not alternate realities created by fiction). You may continue ranting at your own discretion. Indrian 21:27, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
      • If I read a reference to Trilithium and wanted to know more about it, thinking it was a real substance, even if I hated Star Trek and did not like to read about fictional materiials, then an article telling me it was a fictional substance would be of great help to me.
  • Keep. IMO it will grow, as will the reference list. If we delete it now we'll just see it recreated when these wikilinks are created. Agree we have a lack of balance where Star Trek is concerned; The solution is to encourage other areas, not to discourage trekies. Andrewa 21:20, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep yet the article needs some expansion —siroχo 22:15, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge with dilithium or keep. It doesn't look like there is enough information for a separate article as it stands, but someone who knows more about the subject might be able to say otherwise. (They are related substances, though, so it's not inappropriate to put them in the same article.) [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 22:23, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. RustyCale 22:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Star Trek may be a fictional universe, but with the number of fans that it has, it has relevance to the real universe. People who whinge about pop culture being in wikipedia forget that pop culture is a definiing aspect of modern western civilisation, and it's folly to try to understand the modern way of life without understanding pop culture. Shane King 00:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
    • Absolutely, pop culture has its place here; more than a place, really. I have nothing but lavish praise for much pop culture, and Star Trek for that matter. The series is a great realm of imagination and thought. However, the question here is fan minutiae, where it's gotten to the point that characters that appear for barely five minutes in a single episode of a series get an article. Dilithium is a notable word beyond fan knowledge (anyone who has heard of Star Trek has most certainly heard of this), but trilithium is most decidedly not. We delete vanity articles on individuals who are "non-notable" - why should we be any different with non-notable individuals from fictional universes? My other issue is that fancruft has a tendency to be not well-written, unfortunate as it is, with little (if any) context beyond what the fans already know. But this has all been discussed before Wikipedia talk: Deletion policy#Policy proposal concerning episode guides and episode lists. At any rate, my vote for this particular article is merge and redirect - as the substance has most relevance to said article. Ian Pugh 01:41, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge/redirect. -Sean Curtin 00:59, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Memory Alpha perhaps? :o) Chris 03:37, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are lots of these. See Fictional chemical substance. RickK 04:26, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. It has no existence whatsoever outside the Star Trek series, and is merely a made up word to sound scientific to people who don't know enough science. Since Wikipedia has a perfectly workable search engine, we don't need a separate article for it anyway. I'll be blunt - a description of the use, colour and function of my coffee mug (or indeed anyone else's) is a lot more notable than this, as drinking vessels are the sort of thing that archaeologists get quite interested in, while an occasional passing reference to a made up object in a long running serial isn't. Average Earthman 09:26, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Now say "nuclear wessels!" Ian Pugh 12:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Fictional_chemical_substance. Frankly, I think dilithium belongs there too. Shadoks 12:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, as above. It's too much info for too little notability. The fictional substance page is a good page, though. No shame there! Terrapin 21:15, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Too much info? As long as its accurate and NPOV, I'm not sure that's possible. Keep.
  • Delete. More fancruft. GRider 22:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Dilithium. Trilithium has never had a major role in the Star Trek universe, and certainly none distinct from dilithium, though it's common enough that someone might search on it. To make separate articles for these substances would be like making separate articles for red and green kryptonite. Psychonaut 14:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I found the article interesting, well-written, and appropriate. While a minor element in the series (as some have noted), well-connected to a major element (dilithium), and extends one's understanding of the major element. Sukoshisumo 19:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Decumanus 03:50, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
  • Merge. This has been mentioned, what, twice? It's not even a "separate" material as much as an isotope (or whatever, I'm no scientist) of dilithium. Adam Bishop 03:52, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • It's been mentioned at least five times, judging by the citations in the article and in the Memory Alpha page. There's nothing in either of those saying that it's the same material as dilithium, which is why I think merging the two would be odd. Factitious 04:01, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
      • Isn't it a byproduct of dilithium in that TNG episode? (With the terrorists and baryon sweep) Adam Bishop 04:30, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • You're joking, right? Keep, of course. anthony 警告 14:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and then delete. -- Radman1 16:08, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
General comment. I don't understand. Annorax, a major character in one of the more memorable Voyager episodes gets almost unanimous delete votes, and a one-off minor fictional substance gets kept? (FWIW, I voted to delete or merge/redir both.) Niteowlneils 17:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable fictional material, likely some real-world material will be named after it someday. Sam [Spade] 18:55, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • keep, expand, cross-reference -- see my rant on deletion of so-called 'fancruft':User:Pedant#call_this_a_rant_on_delting fancruft today may well be notable history tomorrow.
  • Merge and redirect to Treknobabble The Steve 18:22, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: I wonder how this vote should be counted, considering that treknobabble is obviously the wrong place to merge this and nobody else voted to merge it there. I think the variety of votes on this page shows that we need a better policy guideline to fall back on for articles like this. ~leif ☺ HELO 19:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • How about you consider it a vote to merge into some appropriate Star Trek article? Treknobabble is the article I consider most appropriate, since it sure looks like a pseudoscientific gibberish word created for use in a Star Trek script to me. The Steve 20:14, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Intrigue 19:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • keep Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:53, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to dilithium. --Slowking Man 06:47, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Merging this with dilithium is nonsense, they are seperate materials, the article clearly states it is a fictional material, I see no harm. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 10:05, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Those not going to Star Trek articles won't be "hurt" in any way, and those who are interested in Star Trek will love us. -- user:zanimum
  • Keep. Tell the truth, you've heard of Star Trek / Trilithium and were dying to find out what it is - Do not deny star trek nerds their info! :) --ShaunMacPherson 12:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I looked up dilithium and saw a link to this - why shouldn't you keep it? I found it interesting to read. One of the points of Wikipedia is to include articles that other encyclopaedias can't. Also, it uses maybe 5kb of hard drive space? User:SECProto
  • Keep. We have dilithium, why not trilithium? -Branddobbe 07:06, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trilithium&oldid=1141937847"