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, redirect unnecessary as the page has been renamed. Krimpet (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nitrium (Star Trek)[edit]

Nitrium (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

NOTE: This AfD has been submitted for speedy delete and redirect based on concensus by the original author, all the authors (except bots) and editor who listed the AfD in the first place. There doesn't seem to be any uninvolved editors for keep now. VK35 22:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This in accurate insofar as there is consensus. With VF35's move of the nominated article (specifically, addition of "Star Trek" disambig text to title, I'd rather see the thing deleted. --EEMeltonIV 22:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary compound with no real-world significance or impact. Would like to redirect to episode in which it appears, but User:VK35 objects. This seems the best avenue to kill the material here, shift it to redirect. have this lingering blurb delete -- odds of someone searching for "nitrium" in Star Trek context is minimal; odds of someone stumbling upon it with the "(Star Trek)" disambig text is non-existent. (As an side, but this collision of the minds is the second or third time I've taken an article to Afdeletion when a redirect is the preferred course. Is there another/a better avenue to pursue shifts like this? EEMeltonIV 16:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep RedirectI oppose AfD, not oppose EEMeltonIV. Nitrium was originally written by someone else, later got Prodded, then significantly improved by me. Redirect to Cost of Living (TNG episode) is not right because that article makes no mention of Nitrium (original mention was reverted out). If there's a large Nitrium description in the episode article, it seems out of place. I believe Nitrium is better written and more important to Star Trek knowledge than this compound (also in Category:Star Trek materials) [[1]] and also more notable than [[2]] (also in Category:Fictional materials), yet neither is AfD'ed. NOTE: I think Keep is the best choice, if Merged, then we should consider unmerging if there is opposition at the Cost of Living {TNG episode) article.VK35 18:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the tip about Ketracel White; it now redirects to Jem'Hadar. WP:Justbecauseit's(not)trueforotherarticles is not sufficient grounds to (not) keep an article. --EEMeltonIV 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, to make clear: I oppose merging the nitrium content into the Cost of Living article beyond just a sentence, if that. --EEMeltonIV 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be advantageous to keep because if merged, there may be content dispute on what to keep (practically nothing versus some). There are already signs that this is happening.VK35 19:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The same lack of real-world significance that makes it insufficient for its own article doesn't mean the same trivial, in-universe minutiae is okay to keep so long as it's copy-and-pasted into a larger article. Additionally, much of the current article's content -- and what was duplicated on the episode page -- cited unreliable sources such as Memory Alpha and some fellow's personal website. Please take a look at Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction, which explains the importance of establishing real-world/out-of-universe notability, and reliable sources, which explains what materials generally stand up under scrutiny as appropriate for citing assertions in articles. Also, please note that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --EEMeltonIV 20:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cost of Living (TNG episode). The article practically admits its non-notability (..it is only mentioned once..). EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• corrected article to include real life use of nitrium. I just learned that it is not entire science fiction. It has uses in real life and in furniture. This may cause people to look it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VK35 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• In which case Nitrium just needs a dab redirecting to Cost of Living (TNG episode). EliminatorJR ^Talk 21:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• no opinion I, the original author, actually have written very little of the current text, and am not engaged in documenting SciFi very much, so I simply know too little to have a serious opinion. Said: Rursus 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:FICT as having no real-world significance outside of one Star Trek:The Next Gneeration episode. We don't even need the redirect. The cut and paste into Nitrium, AFD notice included, was also a poor idea. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge enough content to make it clear what's being talked about into the Episode article, make a disambiguation at Nitrium as it is a real world usage, but some people may want to look up the Trek name. FrozenPurpleCube 21:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, it seems to me that there is a problem with communication here. As a suggestion for other steps, WP:3 is one option, as is WP:RFC or even WP:PM. But really, there's no substitute for effective communication with another user, and that may be something of the problem here. FrozenPurpleCube 21:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to rush things but I think there is a concensus for redirect. The most pertinent nitrium information has already been placed in the episode article. The original author, significantly contributing editor (me), and AfD listor all agree. The few others who opined on this AfD appear to agree, too. I have submitted this AfD for speedy delete. I have already done the redirect, thus keeping nitrium on the Category:Star Trek materials list so if others are looking at materials, such as dilithium, they can read the episode article.VK35 22:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move — Create a Star Trek section and then move the article to it. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 21:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not have adequate secondary sources, and they are unlikely to be found. Jay32183 02:27, 14 May 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.