Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PADD

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 delete, the keep side didn't have one policy based reason. This is a Secret account 18:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PADD

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

Real-world information is almost entirely original research; one bit that is cited to a third-party source can be incorporated into LCARS (to which this article might more appropriately redirect). There is no assertion of real-world notability for these props, but there is some material based on the more broadly-scene user interface in the LCARS article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep with appropriate cleanup tag. OR or not, the fact remains that these gizmos appeared in Star Trek before they did in real life and are quite notable in the Star Trek universe. --Blanchardb 17:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There need to be sources demonstrating that they are notable out of the Star Trek universe. Otto4711 04:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is linked to by many other articles. Anarchist42 18:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a Treknology article to dump things in? 132.205.99.122 20:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. FYI, Memory Alpha is the Star Trek wiki. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete in the absence of reliable secondary sources either about the in-universe ST aspects or the original research claims that the ST design "may have" inspired PDA design. Otto4711 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Otto4711. I can't see how this meets the criteria for an encyclopedic article. Or merge into a ST article. ~Jeeny (talk) 04:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'll admit that it does need some more ref's, but seems notable. - Rjd0060 04:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you let us know what the reliable sources are that you're relying on in making your determination? Otto4711 18:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Question - where in the article is that notability asserted and referenced? Lacking that, the article should be deleted? --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 7 November 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.