Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 3

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. Singu larity 03:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha

This website, while useful, fails WP:WEB and lacks non-trivial references by reliable third party publications. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale I've provided as nominator. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2 previous AfDs and former featured article status. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Former featured article status has nothing to do with notability. All votes with regard to this former FA status should be treated like WP:ILIKEIT or WP:PRETTY. Lakitu was a former featured article too, but its just a minor creature from Mario and is now rightfully just a mere paragrah in an article on mario enemies (and one could argue it doesnt even really deserve that). Ex-wikipedian ALKIVAR™ ☢ 21:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's referenced in official Star Trek publications, per Colonel Warden. Must we go AfDing every wiki site article on WP every few weeks? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Official Star Trek books do mention the site, but I'm not sure as to how in-depth they get about it. This was once a featured article?! My how Wikipedia has evolved. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Google News search shows sustained WP:RS coverage to satisfy general notability. Memory Alpha is one of the more prominent wikis out there. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The attempt to delete Star Trek material and move it to this particular site has now reached the peak of absurdity. DGG (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - come on, folks. This site has a whole bunch of mentions in reliable sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep frankly, I find the nom a bit ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former feature article = clearly notable. Any problems it currently has are signs the article needs improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 04:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, if it was a former featured article, it was considered notable at one time. And once notable always notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not every wiki is notable but this is one of the premier ones. JamesMLane t c 20:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is borderline notable, consider renominating again in a few months.--Otterathome (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment This site is certainly noteworthy, but that does not mean wp:notable, there is clear consensus to keep, however votes aren't how we measure notability. Could someone beef up the references, and put this beyond doubt? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD is not cleanup. It is not about votes, it is weight of evidence, and 3rd-party coverage is obviously out there to fix this article in due course. That coverage establishes notability. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The google books reference does not ascert notability, the usage could be just as definitive as Joe Bloggs in any other book, notability needs ascerted Fasach Nua (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - On reflection, this wiki is linked in every Star Trek article on WP, due to our own familiarity as a result of constant exposure to the name on this site, it may cause us to think it is notable, when outside of the wikiworld it may be irrelevant. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep. It's clear that it has been mentioned in a lot of reliable sources and is therefore notable. That said, I don't buy the argument that just because an article was once a Featured Article that that automatically means that it's notable (I think it's moot here, since it's otherwise notable); just because an article was at one point judged to be well-written and sources doesn't obviously indicate that the subject is notable. Xihr (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions don't count towards notability.--Otterathome (talk) 00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden's finding books on google. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 31 May 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.