Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolem

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. Cirt (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kolem

Surely fails any test of WP:notability. No references, a few google hits on fan sites. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Next Phase, and delete the redirect. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Even the Star Trek wiki has very little on this [1]. I don't think that there is anything worth merging, but a redirect to The Next Phase might be useful. Bláthnaid ^talk 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least a mention of it should be made somewhere. The "quad" unit has a mention on Wikipedia already. Amhantar (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beam me up, there is nothing here. dicdef & not notable. Equendil Talk 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable, very minor fictional element. No content to merge anywhere. Redirect is unnecessary as this is a very unlikely search term. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No satisfaction of WP:N by this fictional unit of energy created in some moment by a writer for a sci-fi program. Edison (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictdef and can probably be considered neologism as well. VG ☎ 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even seet he point of the redirect. it's not in the article on the episode, and I don't see that it needs to be. There is some level of detail where relegation to a fan wiki does make sense. DGG (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is only just a detail but then please explain to me why other units are allowed to be mentioned here on wikipedia... Maybe it could be added to the technology section of the Romulan article? Amhantar (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that other articles are equally non-notable you can propose to delete them too, or bring them here as articles for deletion. Generally Wikipedia does not accept the argument that similar stuff exists to be a valid reason for keeping a particular article. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 24 September 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.