Talk:Trellium-D
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 1 December 2007. The result of the discussion was discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek. |
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 May 2008. The result of the discussion was Merge. |
I would keep this in! I just googled "Trellium-D" to look it up, and this was the first thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.174.13 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 1 March 2008
I merged and redirected this article to Impulse (Star Trek: Enterprise)#Trellium-D which was supported at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mallora and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek/archive4#Trellium-D. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Inaccurate--seems typical of AfD. Can't the article be deleted accurately? Well, beside the point. The merger of this article was NOT supported at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trellium-D where it was being discussed. --Blechnic (talk) 04:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I admit that the merger was a fait accompli, but it was carried out in ignorance of the latest AFD nomination. I merged it to fulfil an old AFD. The latest AFD had not been flagged on the article; more people would probably have participated in the AFD if it had been. The AFD discussion ought also to have included a link to the previous (multiple) AFD that included the same article. In the latest discussion, there were four contributors; two said keep; I was the only one who said merge this time, but I pasted in other comments in favour of merger from the previous AFD -- including the latest nominator. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- So, in other words, you knew it was there, but moved it because others didn't, and essentially did what you voted? You ignored it where it was convenient to do what you decided. It just gets nicer. Basically, AfD is a waste of time, and my participating didn't matter jack as long as you did whatever you wanted? I think I got it, you know? You do what you want no matter what others are debating or discussing. --Blechnic (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't. Please read WP:AGF. Coincidences happen. If I did that I would be wasting my time, because my work would get reverted, and I'd probably get blocked. Now that you have reverted it (a WP:BOLD move on your part), I'm happy to edit it back here again, because the AFD did not follow procedure on at least three counts. It is of course liable to be re-nominated, although I think I have improved it now. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- I admit that the merger was a fait accompli, but it was carried out in ignorance of the latest AFD nomination. I merged it to fulfil an old AFD. The latest AFD had not been flagged on the article; more people would probably have participated in the AFD if it had been. The AFD discussion ought also to have included a link to the previous (multiple) AFD that included the same article. In the latest discussion, there were four contributors; two said keep; I was the only one who said merge this time, but I pasted in other comments in favour of merger from the previous AFD -- including the latest nominator. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merge proposal
I formally propose, as a focussed discussion here, to merge and redirect this article to Impulse (Star Trek: Enterprise). See the links above to previous discussions at AFD:Mallora etc where there was support for this.
Please indicate "support" or "oppose" with reasons below.
- Support: because this fictional material may not be sufficiently notable on its own to have its own article. Even though it was a significant recurring plot element in Enterprise season 3, and was a means for addressing the real-world issue of drug addiction, it is not covered in independent media. Merger into the episode article provides sufficient context to retain this information because of its importance for continuity. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support - the article does not have any real-world notability and a bare unreferenced sentenced about its drug addiction-like storyline is not real-world context. Otto4711 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support merger - It is a good idea for non notable articles.
