Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Pheonix

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. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Pheonix[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I am unable to find any verification for the vague references to "two official Star Trek Actors to the show" and "Oscar Award winning teams from J.J. Abrams' film", both of whom "are said to have come back to work on the series". SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - article name was misspelled. When you search with "Star Trek: Phoenix", e.g., [1], a bit more coverage turns up. Enough? I don't know. Is there a speedy-delete category for misspelled article names? Yakushima (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I've added a search with the presumably correct spelling. I'm not seeing much there, though. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. A spelling mistake in the title is a reason to move the page to the correct spelling, not delete it. The fact that the original author made a spelling mistake or typo is not a reflection on the notability of the subject. Dricherby (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct spelling and clean it up. [2] seems to be a reliable source. It's a two-articles-in-one, but the second half is about 4 paragraphs on this show. It may be at that "enough-to-keep-a-stub" level for now. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move, expand from RS. My best arguments are WP:PLEASEDONT, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:INTERESTING, and mostly WP:HARMLESS. JJB 05:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I have already moved it to the correct title Star Trek: Phoenix. I have noticed that native English speakers seem to be prone to this kind of misspelling, accidentally transposing two adjacent vowels. JIP | Talk 05:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as subject plausibly appears to cross the verifiability and notability thresholds. I have somewhat improved this article (categories, cleanup, templates, references, etc.) but more references from reliable sources would go a long way towards shoring up support for this article. - Dravecky (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added the reference I noted above. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey, I'm the original author of this article. I didn't think it'd last long, but thanks for letting it stay (for now) and thanks for cleaning it up. I honestly thought that Phoenix was spelled with the O and E switched. Thanks a bunch for keeping my first page alive though. I wanted to contribute a little to Wikipedia a little after using it so much. I thought I could write a page on something I knew something about, but didn't know it would cause so much trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XargothTerran (talk • contribs) 00:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2012 (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.