Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Close parking orbit

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. Sango123 00:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close parking orbit

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and I believe that this could adequately be merged into a separate article, such as, for example, Treknobabble. — Mike •  16:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT as (trekkie) dicdef. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft cruft cruft. out out out. per Angus McLellan. - Motor (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable term that could never be more than just a stub. BigDT 18:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even worth a redir to Treknobabble. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and no suggestion for mentioning it anywhere; insignificant to the max. GassyGuy 21:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't think the term was even used consistently in that way in Star Trek. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Shhh. There are people whose life would collapse at the thought that Star Trek was not an internally self-consistent alternative reality. By God, they've devalued the perfectly good word Canon just talking about it.-- GWO
    • The Baker Street Irregulars shot that canon a long time ago.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if this belongs anywhere (I'm not sure), it's Memory Alpha not Wikipedia. Eluchil404 05:34, 9 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.