Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2213

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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2213

Article about a year over 200 years in the future, and the only item listed is a fictional event. Note: prod tag was removed by an anonymous user with the comment, "Wikipedia has articles about many future years, fictional and otherwise". - EurekaLott 00:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete crystal ball, empty list. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 01:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn, no context, unsourced, unverified, crystalballism. Fancruft. Tychocat 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Even the 2210's (and the other decades) redirect to 23rd century. At best, merge it with 23rd century. Ted 01:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with something Star Trek, look at the link, it's a trekkie thing. Yanksox 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it has one fact (which is from the trek universe), so it even counts as an article with essentially no content. Also I can't verify the fact - the memory alpha page on the museumd doesn't mention a founding year. --Bachrach44 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I know nothing about the Trek. Yanksox 02:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't know if I'd call it crystal ball, since I don't think anyone believes that's actually going to happen, but it's certainly fancruft. Kafziel 02:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JChap 03:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom Adambiswanger1 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as trekcruft. Not really — but it is NN crystal-ballery: I just wanted to say "Trekcruft". — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, barely anything in the list. --Terence Ong 05:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I can not think of any reason why this is an article that serves any purposeCanadianshoper 05:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete crystal ball and fancruft. Jammo (SM247) 06:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, hopeless article. The article only says one thing about the year, and even that is fictional. Does not need merging to anything. JIP | Talk 10:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• DElete as fancruft and even if it didn't have that it atill wouldn't warrant an article Ydam 11:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete , or redirect to the century as I'm led to believe is precedent for stuff like this. Whatever... trekcruft. - Motor (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Deletecruft! MaxSem 18:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. The year hasn't come yet, so how could it have been established? Invitatious 22:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thetruthbelow 23:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, bend, fold, tear, mutilate, shred, stomp, stomp, stomp. Sorry, I just couldn't help myself. :-) — RJH (talk) 01:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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.