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, implemented as redirect to Bajoran to allow for a history merge if there is consensus for it. Sandstein (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cardassian Occupation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article is not notable, and is simply a repetition in an in-universe way of plot elements from the various Star Trek Deep Space Nine episode articles. It is thus totally duplicative and has no encyclopedic content to speak of. Judgesurreal777 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete article mostly covered in Cardassian. --Pmedema 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic, and reads like a story. Redrocketboy 22:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge - unnotable in real-world, in universe plot summary only. Ejfetters 22:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or Merge if this absolutely must not result in keeping the article). See Disavian's argument on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III (Star Trek): the Cardassian Occupation is a major backstory element in Deep Space Nine. Also note that the one-paragraph summary of Deep Space Nine in the Star Trek article links to this article: see Star Trek#Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993–1999). • WarpFlyght (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, no real-world notability exists, see WP:NOT and WP:FICT Ejfetters 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More importantly than that, see Wikipedia:No original research. I cannot find any sources at all that actually document and discuss this element of the stories. Certainly, neither you nor the article have cited any. Any analysis of the subject would thus be original research, constructed directly in Wikipedia by Wikipedia editors, which is forbidden. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. If the rest of the world has not published analyses of this subject, Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. The rest of the world has to properly document a subject, via a process of fact checking and peer review, first. Uncle G 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several Trek character articles that have real-world notability that is not original research in them, just look around, they are also source where they were taken from - casting info, cultural impact, etc. Ejfetters 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... none of which is relevant to the discussion of this article. Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable, third-party sources are on the page. AnteaterZot 00:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• User Uncle G stated himself that no real-world information can be found. Better to merge to Bajoran and/or Cardassian, keeping a redirect here. Ejfetters (talk) 05:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.