Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek Technical Manuals

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 per consensus. Pea ceNT 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek Technical Manuals[edit]

Listcruft/Fancruft; violates WP:NOT/WP:N; Delete --Mhking 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, remove entries from list without their own wikipedia articles. Nardman1 21:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I don't see why entries without articles should be removed. It's fairly comprehensive, which is a good thing for a list IMO. Does Memory Alpha have a copy of this? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I find the nominator's use of Listcruf/Fancruft a reason for concern, as that kind of speech is borderline uncivil and offensive, and is not actually the best way to express a problem, I don't know that they are mistaken in objecting to this page, as it's only a listing of books, which may make for a directory problem. There are thousands of subjects which have numerous non-fiction books on them, but do they all need entries on Wikipedia? Fictional novels is one thing, non-fiction is another. I am not quite saying to delete, but I do think there is merit to the concern. FrozenPurpleCube 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this amounts to a sub-genre of its own, and is appropriate for an article. To me, a fascinating list. To an outsider, every article on the whole general topic would classify as fancruft. DGG 02:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To answer the question asked above, Memory Alpha does indeed have a copy of this. JavaTenor 04:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. However I would prefer to see any fan-made books removed and the list restricted to officially licensed works, otherwise I do believe this would violate the "only write about canon" guidelines of the Star Trek WikiProject. As I think that would result in a very short list, perhaps the ultimate solution would be to merge this and create a list of non-fiction works related to Star Trek, if one doesn't already exist. 23skidoo 19:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I believe it was a well-written article that would most likely have a wide appeal to Star Trek fans. As we all know, but not agree on, Star Trek has a fan base that goes into the millions. Not only in the English speaking population but extends into all countries and cultures. That in and of itself lends the article to be included in Wikipedia. More so, in the fact that it finds an audience that surpasses just a limited number of individual, but has in fact the ability to cross cultural lines. A definite ‘’’KEEP’’’ considering many of our other articles that are included here. Shoessss 22:35, 16 April 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.