Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Bonaventure

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Essjay · Talk 09:12, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] USS Bonaventure

Delete Page for non-canon Star Trek starship. Aside from that the content is copied almost verbatim from the Star Trek wiki http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Bonaventure AlistairMcMillan 01:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and nothing links to it. AlistairMcMillan 01:57, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Neither of these justifies VfD; the first is either copyvio or irrelevant; as for the second, go add some links. Septentrionalis 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You may not be familiar with Star Trek or the Star Trek-related pages on here, but Paramount disregards everything except for the actual live-action movies and TV series (Star Trek canon), and so far on Wikipedia we've stuck to that standard. AlistairMcMillan 02:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Which would be fine except that Paramount provided major quantities of material for the Star Trek Fact Files which certainly extend (or attempt to, depending on your veiwpoint) canon. And how do the Chronology and Encyclopaedia fir in to your 'canon' definiton ? --Simon Cursitor 07:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"My canon definition"??? Please find an expert on the subject and ask them how Paramount defines canon. Or read our page on the subject, Star Trek canon which you can see I haven't touched. Anyway... the Fact Files, Chronology and Encyclopedia are not considered canon BY PARAMOUNT. AlistairMcMillan 07:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

With respect, you have misinterpreted by typing. I was referring not to your personal definition of canon, but to which of the various defintions of 'canon' (whether ST or otherwise) you choose to subscribe. Paramount may own the copyright on ST, but there are aspects of the show which vary in canonicity. One example is the sehlat -- canon for the word, not (as understand) for the animated version. --Simon Cursitor 14:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete we don't need non-cannon Star Trek material. (I would suggest it be copied to memory alpha, but, apparently, it came from there. (Sheesh, 2nd edit conflict with Alistair...(i.e. the second time that both of us were trying to edit VfD at the same time - not a disagreement about content or anything else) JesseW 02:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (Edited above comment to clarify; JesseW 02:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC))

• Delete Silly Star Trek nonsense! Frühstücksdienst 03:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-canon Star Trek, and is Star Trek minutiae really encylopedic? 03:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, more non-canon fancruft. The Enterprise, this fictional starship ain't. Lord Bob 03:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Deletenot encylopedic.Geni 05:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete This would be fine in a Star Trek wiki - not here. DJ Clayworth 17:12, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio. It's copied from Memory Alpha, and all work on Memory Alpha is covered by the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC license, a license that is incompatible with the GFDL. --Carnildo 22:58, 4 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.