Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navigational deflector

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 06:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navigational deflector

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

Article makes no assertion of real-world notability. Plot-summary-laden story is entirely in-universe with no citations to reliable secondary sources. --EEMIV (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Unless there is an assertion of notability, its just plot repetition. Judgesurreal777 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Per the above; it isn't notable, purely unnecessary plot information which is probably discussed elsewhere. - Rjd0060 05:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: As a Trek fan, this is not a notable piece of fictional technology outside of the universe, and I strongly doubt that there will be a finding of notability. Assimilate this information into Shields (Star Trek). Resistance is futile. LonelyBeacon 05:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and {cleanup}. Some form of "navigational deflector" technology will presumably have to be developed to actually attain faster-than-light human spacetravel, or probably even near-light-speed travel, so it should be possible to find references to scientific research and theories of how to attain it in real life, to add to the article about the concept. Ravenna1961 07:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • However, in this universe is isn't possible to find references to scientific research on this subject. There isn't even a treatment of this subject as a fictional plot device. There's nothing written about this subject at all. Note that your supposed source, an advertisement, does not actually support the content that you added to the article. It contains no such conclusion or analysis. What you've added is original research, which is forbidden here. That you've reached so far as to use an advertisement as a source and been unable to find anything at all to support the article, or even your own conclusions, should be a big red flag that there are no sources to be had. Uncle G 11:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, unsourced. User Ravenna1961 can recreate the article when faster-than-light travel is attained. Fee Fi Foe Fum 07:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Ravenna1961's cleanup work. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think my joke is better than yours. Did I steal your punchline? Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, on second thought, neutral. I was mostly reacting to the sectioning of the article, which gives it a better look to some extent. The sources are rather lacking at the moment. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I own a copy of The Physics of Star Trek, so I'll dig it up tonight and take a look to see if there's anything particularly relevant in there. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per LonelyBeacon. Article is unsourced fictional technology that is obscure in the Star Trek universe and not notable in the real world. Also, the above mentioned cleanup hurt more than it helped IMO. • Gene93k 08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
• I've looked for sources myself. None exist. This article is unverifiable, and Ravenna1961 has provided an excellent, if somewhat ironic, demonstration of how writing anything at all on this subject would be original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:55, 4 December 2007 (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.