Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chroniton

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 Redirect to Treknobabble. Cúchullain ^t/c 02:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chroniton

Chroniton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Uncited with twinges of OR. Plot summary of minor device with no real-world content or context. Had redirected several times to Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Chroniton (where abbreviated contents of this page has been transposed), but an anonymous editor has regularly undone this redirect. So, bringing it to AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I am a fan of the shows. The article even states that there is essentially no real world connection to be made. It is an extremely minor point in the universe, and hardly deserving of an entire article. Maybe a redirect to Star Trek technobabble, if an article exists. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See Treknobabble. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect to Treknobabble, as this doesn't need it's own article. Master of Puppets ^{Call me MoP!} 00:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - per above. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Given its occasional use in other franchises, Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Chroniton would probably be a better redirect destination. --EEMIV (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect - Not notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect. I support restoring the redirect to Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles#Chroniton. This is trivia and original research with no hope of improving, but if abbreviated and merged into a list - which has a lower standard of encyclopedic quality - then it's no worse than all the Narutocruft; It might even make FA status! — TheBilly^(Talk) 20:29, 9 January 2008 (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.