Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha (6th nomination)

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha

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 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. Tschravic (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the level of coverage recieved about this one site to be sufficient to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out in WP:N. 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. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tschravic (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish that this article be merged somewhere, then I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination and start a merge proposal on Talk:Memory Alpha. 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. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD for this article resulted in "no consensus" (after DRV). Since then, I added several sources: review in Entertainment Weekly, prominently discussed in an article about Star Trek websites, article that discusses, among other things, the various languages in which it's available, source that confirms that it was the largest wiki on Wikia as of 2005. That's non-trivial coverage, meeting our WP:N notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the issue, but think there seem to be sufficient material to reference the article (as well as establish its notability). --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep have used this article once or twice, looked at it for this deletion issue,

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 - for what its worth this reader suggests keep the article - [of course like all articles it can be improved over time] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.169 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep 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. Gigs (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per TeaDrinker's argument. Until It Sleeps 00:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the article has "inappropriate informations and unsourced statements", be bold, fix it! Deletion discussion is not necessary. --J^mundo 01:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination is too weak to justify another round of AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and round and round we go....I just noticed that it's nominated AGAIN for deletion...

It doesn't readily meet the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#REASON criterion (see summary listing below)

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: 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.

besides which: 6 noms? This should be a no-brainer by now. It's survived 5 rounds: Let it be already.

VulpineLady (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Five nominations and five keeps? I think people should quit nominating the article. Johnn 7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 6 May 2009 (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.