Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Dominion War

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Dominion War

Second Dominion War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

fancruft with no canon backing, prod removed by author of article Mnemeson 00:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and need to search out links/references to this fancruft (see above AFD). SkierRMH 02:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Here we go. There's about 10 articles on fan films out there, do they require a deletion too? I'm slightly reluctant because they seem reasonable articles. MER-C 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Useless fancruft. MER-C 04:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lacks any independent sources.-- danntm ^T _C 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless in-universe OR fancruft rubbish. An offshoot of this, which does assert its notability. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis...not solely a summary of that work's plot. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Actually, it's an offshoot of this, which doesn't, and is also up for AFD. Star Trek: Intrepid is, I feel, notable, but the forum game which shares its name is not. --Mnemeson 17:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ah, I stand corrected. All the more reason to delete. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Fire at will Delete, as Memory Alpha doesn't have an article on it; therefore it's not notable in Star Trek. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Baristarim 19:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Disavian. Memory Alpha is the definitive Star Trek Reference, and if they don't have it, it isn't Star Trek. FirefoxMan 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - based on non-notable, and non-canon, material. Quack 688 09:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Send this article straight to the Epsilon Quadrant. ( Yes, I know there are only four quadrants. That's the point.... What I'm saying is send it into non-existence, even within the fictional setting.... Yes, that's right, I'm saying Delete.... Well, yes, I could have said that the first time, but I wanted to say something amusing. It's a joke - get it ? A J-O-K-E.... Oh, for goodness' sake, just get a life.... Yes, well, if I had a life I wouldn't have to spend my time agonising over tertiary fancruft.... ) WMMartin 18:17, 12 December 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.