186:
Wikia or an article about
Trekkies. The question is not whether it can be classified as 'noteworthy', but rather, whether there's enough 'substence'. For instance The New York Times article doesn't even mention memory-alpha at all, and several of the references are to pages on memory-alpha or simply unsourced. 'Hippocrates Noah's archived nomination for featured status can be found on Memory Alpha. There was an unprecedented level of debate associated with the nomination.' does not count as a source. Another example, is the influence that memory-alpha has had on other wikis. Does this get a mention in any of the references, probably not. It's just interesting facts about the site's place in wikia. I don't believe, the content of this page will be any thing more than 'memory-alpha is a star trek wiki that's pretty popular among fans. X Y Z have all noted it as a good resourse.', once you cut thru the things that don't belong on wikipedia. Its nothing personal. I have used the sight many a time myself.
360:
it has some references, I have used it at least twice, seemed noteable - more noteable than some tiny little places that have their own articles, this article seems well enough written, has alot of information on the topic - as good and as notable as many other wikipedia articles in my humble opinion
185:
I'm sorry my
English isn't very good but I feel, that once you cut away the content that is original research or uses primary sources (half of the article is just a captain's log of some memory-alpha user's time spent on that site), there isn't enough to justify an article. This should be merged into
468:
copyright infringement: none; vandalism: none (if you don't count the repeated nominations); spam: none; forks: none; originality/hoaxes: none; lack of sources: none; notability: debatable, but since it was a featured article I'd say it's notable enough to keep; policy breach-biography of living:
386:
The article is oversized considering the sparse secondary source coverage. I almost !voted Weak Delete... There's really not a lot out there to reliably source from. A lot of what is in the article right now is synthesis of the sources, which is not good at all.
252:. While "merge" is one possible result of an AFD discussion, there's no real way to enforce a "merge" close if the regular editors are dead set against it. A "merge" close is more or less a "keep" close with a strong recommendation to merge. --
233:
The question is, will there be anything left of the article once all of the inappropriate informations and unsourced statements are removed. My answer is no. That's why I want to merge it into somewhere else.
469:
none; redundancy: none; overcategorization: debatable as "small lacking growth", but how else should it be listed?; Image issues: none; use contrary to policy: none; non-encyclopedic nature: none.
208:. If the article needs stylistic cleanup to be more in line with the MOS or other issues, such as inappropriate original research or NPOV issues, those issues can be cleaned up without deletion. --
105:
100:
95:
90:
314:
178:
117:
111:
85:
368:
62:
248:
If you wish that this article be merged somewhere, then I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination and start a merge proposal on
339:
I can see the issue, but think there seem to be sufficient material to reference the article (as well as establish its notability). --
145:
140:
507:
483:
449:
432:
412:
396:
376:
348:
330:
304:
261:
243:
224:
195:
149:
68:
17:
219:
132:
204:
I find the level of coverage recieved about this one site to be sufficient to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out in
524:
405:
326:
36:
523:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
445:
272:
The previous AfD for this article resulted in "no consensus" (after DRV). Since then, I added several sources:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
372:
479:
257:
472:
besides which: 6 noms? This should be a no-brainer by now. It's survived 5 rounds: Let it be already.
503:
364:
344:
322:
441:
239:
191:
52:
49:
493:
213:
497:
421:
249:
136:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
475:
253:
340:
282:
article that discusses, among other things, the various languages in which it's available
392:
297:
235:
187:
492:
Five nominations and five keeps? I think people should quit nominating the article.
457:
and round and round we go....I just noticed that it's nominated AGAIN for deletion...
209:
128:
74:
166:
426:
289:
205:
388:
356:
have used this article once or twice, looked at it for this deletion issue,
420:
If the article has "inappropriate informations and unsourced statements",
286:
source that confirms that it was the largest wiki on Wikia as of 2005
517:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
462:
361:- for what its worth this reader suggests keep the article -
440:
The nomination is too weak to justify another round of AFD.
278:
prominently discussed in an article about Star Trek websites
285:
281:
277:
273:
173:
162:
158:
154:
106:
Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (6th nomination)
101:
Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (4th nomination)
96:
Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (3rd nomination)
91:
Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (2nd nomination)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
527:). No further edits should be made to this page.
315:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
463:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:DEL#REASON
288:. That's non-trivial coverage, meeting our
309:
424:Deletion discussion is not necessary. --
313:: This debate has been included in the
83:
465:criterion (see summary listing below)
7:
118:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 3
112:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 2
81:
86:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
274:review in Entertainment Weekly
1:
461:It doesn't readily meet the
404:Per TeaDrinker's argument.
544:
520:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
508:00:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
484:23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
450:10:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
433:01:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
413:00:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
397:09:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
377:08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
349:02:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
331:02:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
305:01:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
262:02:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
244:01:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
225:01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
196:01:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
69:00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
292:notability guideline.
80:AfDs for this article:
44:The result was
367:comment added by
333:
318:
303:
250:Talk:Memory Alpha
222:
216:
535:
522:
511:
429:
422:be bold, fix it!
410:
379:
319:
302:
300:
220:
214:
176:
170:
152:
65:
60:
55:
34:
543:
542:
538:
537:
536:
534:
533:
532:
531:
525:deletion review
518:
501:
427:
408:Until It Sleeps
406:
362:
323:LinguistAtLarge
298:
172:
143:
127:
124:
122:
114:
78:
63:
58:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
541:
539:
530:
529:
513:
512:
506:comment added
459:
458:
452:
442:Colonel Warden
435:
415:
399:
369:209.17.145.169
358:
357:
351:
334:
307:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
228:
227:
183:
182:
123:
121:
120:
115:
110:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
82:
79:
77:
72:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
540:
528:
526:
521:
515:
514:
509:
505:
499:
495:
491:
488:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:
466:
464:
456:
453:
451:
447:
443:
439:
436:
434:
431:
430:
423:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
403:
400:
398:
394:
390:
385:
382:
381:
380:
378:
374:
370:
366:
355:
352:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
332:
329:
328:
324:
316:
312:
308:
306:
301:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
270:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
232:
231:
230:
229:
226:
223:
217:
211:
207:
203:
200:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
180:
175:
168:
164:
160:
156:
151:
147:
142:
138:
134:
130:
126:
125:
119:
116:
113:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
76:
73:
71:
70:
66:
61:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
519:
516:
489:
474:
471:
467:
460:
454:
437:
425:
417:
407:
401:
383:
359:
353:
336:
321:
310:
293:
201:
184:
129:Memory Alpha
75:Memory Alpha
45:
43:
31:
28:
502:—Preceding
476:VulpineLady
438:Speedy Keep
363:—Preceding
254:Ron Ritzman
341:TeaDrinker
384:Weak Keep
299:Paul Erik
236:Tschravic
188:Tschravic
365:unsigned
221:contribs
210:Jayron32
179:View log
504:undated
494:Johnn 7
146:protect
141:history
50:King of
174:delete
150:delete
177:) – (
167:views
159:watch
155:links
16:<
498:talk
490:Keep
480:talk
455:Keep
446:talk
418:Keep
402:Keep
393:talk
389:Gigs
373:talk
354:Keep
345:talk
337:Keep
327:Talk
320:-- —
311:Note
294:Keep
290:WP:N
258:talk
240:talk
215:talk
206:WP:N
202:Keep
192:talk
163:logs
137:talk
133:edit
46:keep
500:)
482:)
448:)
395:)
375:)
347:)
325:•
317:.
296:.
284:,
280:,
276:,
260:)
242:)
194:)
165:|
161:|
157:|
153:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
67:♠
48:.
510:.
496:(
478:(
444:(
428:J
391:(
371:(
343:(
256:(
238:(
218:.
212:.
190:(
181:)
171:(
169:)
131:(
64:♣
59:♦
54:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.