Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilithium (Star Trek)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Singularity 03:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dilithium (Star Trek)

Dilithium (Star Trek) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a regurgitation of plot elements from various episodes of Star Trek. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm not even a Star Trek fan and I know about Dilithium crystals! The dilithium crystal concept has been a staple of space-faring SciFi (both real and parody) since Star Trek introduced them, one notable example being Galaxy Quest. This easily falls within WP:FICT. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep A somewhat reluctant keep, my deletionist heart aches but Dilithium is rather notable (as far as fictional fuel sources go.) L0b0t (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Done a little searching, it looks like there is probably evidence to support notability. There is the article by a mineralogist on Star Trek's minerals that has a section on dilithium and is already cited in the article, which says "The most famous and the first to be named of the imaginary “minerals” of Star Trek is dilithium". There's also a book called The Physics of Star Trek (see first result) which appears to discuss dilithium. There's no preview so hard to know how significant the coverage is, but it's listed in the chapter contents so presumably somewhat significant. Apparently dilithium is raised in a Journal of Popular Culture article on Star Trek, but I don't have access so can't check the significance of the coverage. Dilithium is also apparently discussed in a Clinical Toxicology article on futuristic poisonings. It is also discussed in numerous setting guides, but I haven't referenced them because the independance of the publishing is harder to determine in those cases. In combination these disparate references already suggest a notable fictional subject, and my search was only shallow. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Core concept from Star Trek that's escaped the fandom ghetto to be known among the general population. I'm sure this is covered in a plethora of sources. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The concept has long escaped the meger confines of the show. Don't go near the warp core if we delete this one. --Blechnic (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Dilithium crystals are well known as a source of power from the original Star Trek days. This Google search revealed 46,000+ references to it: here Artene50 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup there are tons of pop cultural references to this material, like kryptonite with Superman, this is notable outside of Star Trek. 70.55.84.230 (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, and close per WP:SNOW. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If this AfD is still standing in a bit, I can likely check the Journal of Popular Culture article, though that's just redundant. iIt appears that core Star Trek concepts can be assumed to be worth a search for sources and references... which should be done anyway. --Kizor 12:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that was weird. The journal article discusses a single episode from a Jungian episode, dilithium is only mentioned in passing. I am still for keeping due to all the rest of the sources and the subject's central status in a huge phenomenon as well as influence outside its borders. --Kizor 18:57, 28 May 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.