Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boston Legal Star Trek References

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 --JForget 01:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Legal Star Trek References

This article was created after the content was removed from the Boston Legal article for being a huge trivia section that had no actual encyclopedic value and mostly being WP:Original Research and viewer inferred. Almost impossible to source much of what is claimed. Collectonian (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as it stands it's complete OR. However, there might be sources to indicate that this is intentional or noticed. If some were to be found, then we could add it to the main BL article, with an example or two. But as for now, delete it as OR. I (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. A single paragraph in the main article that notes the show uses them and maybe gives one or two examples would be good, I think, but a huge list is not needed in neither the main article nor as a separate article. Collectonian (talk) 23:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely unverifiable. When this type of list appears, I recommend that editors look into starting a wikia. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NOR, no sources cited. This looks like a cycle. meshach (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a fair few of those Star Trek references are nothing of the sort, just actors who appeared in Star Trek cropping up in Boston Legal. Good grief how much more trivial can lists become.RMHED (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Brewcrewer (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely unencyclopedic triviacruft. Sources wouldn't make a difference either way. DreamGuy (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft, cruftcruft, anything more? JuJube (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fancruft/listcruft Doc Strange (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit too much. • Lawrence Cohen 06:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're some way into the realms of fancruft here. This article is an obvious failure of WP:UNENC. A1octopus (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2007 (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.