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 redirect to Star Trek. This is a difficult close I will admit, however, after carefully reviewing the arguments, I would say those proponents of redirection and deletion base their arguements more strongly in concerns of notability outside of those individuals who use wikis and in reliable sourcing concerns. The keep arguments seem more towards inherent notability of a website many of us use as a result of our participation in Wikipedia and not in our notability system. MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Previous afd's for this site were usually shot down as being WP:POINTy. Seriously, though, let's look at the sources.Almost every single one is a source from the site itself, with a couple forum links and even an Uncyclopedia page; definitely not reliable sources. The two news references cited are general articles on Wikis and do not devote a significant amount of space to Memory Alpha at all. Given the almost total lack of substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, I see no way that this wiki meets WP:WEB. The last AfD pointed to the fact that Star Trek books mention this wiki, but apparently they are only trivial mentons as well, usually just citing a fact from it and not saying more. The last AfD also had "keep" !votes without any actual rationale attached (including, um, one of my own). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Battlestar Wiki, we should probably Redirect to Star Trek. While the previous AfDs are properly done (because the rational largely wasn't correct), they should hold no bearing on this AfD as the reasons for deletion are different. At best, merge the information to Star Treck. DARTH PANDA^duel 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete- ah yes, Memory Alpha, the site that so many Trek fans think Wikipedia should become (shudder!). For a site that's apparently very well known, there is a surprising lack of independent coverage. No problem with revising my opinion if anything should turn up. Reyk _YO! 02:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--in agreement with the hammer. Where is the substantial coverage? I understand someone is substantially interested in this, cause this is a HUGE article. But I don't see the notability. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wonder if any other former featured articles have ever wound up deleted before? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Lights of Zetar, regardless of whether this is kept or not, the fictional location is primary meaning, not the website. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm very much in support of a redirect. I just can't decide which meaning is more important... - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a review, by Jane Klobas and Angela Beesley of the Memory Alpha web site in chapter 2 of ISBN 9781843341796. Dan Woods, Peter Thoeny, and Ward Cunningham give it a sentence in ISBN 9780470043998, which alone would really only support a list item in a list of wikis.

  The only substantial news source that I can find is this: Silvio Sosio (2008-11-18). "Memory Alpha, Trek wiki in versione italiana". Corriere della Fantascienza (in Italian).. As mentioned in the nomination, the others give the web site barely a glancing mention.

  Here's an interesting final tidbit: ISBN 9780965357548 page 16 documents a Memory Alpha fan collection, but it isn't the one that you might think it to be. ☺

  Uncle G (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Redirect this to the main Star Trek article and mention Memory Alpha there. Allemannster (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to meet notability standards under WP:WEB. A quick book search led me to multiple books that reference this site: A few tutorials on blogs and/or wikis (example: Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms - ISBN 1412959713), a few Star Trek encyclopedias (example: Q&A (Star Trek: The Next Generation) - ISBN 1416527419) and at least one reference within the acknowledgments of a Star Trek fiction book (example: Last Full Measure (Star Trek : Enterprise) - ISBN 1416503587). Granted these references are arguably trivial individually but as an aggregate should be sufficient. Raitchison (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. A bunch of trivial coverage piled together is still trivial coverage... I haven't seen the kind of sources that could support a meaningful article, all the sources just seem to say "Memory Alpha is this Star Trek wiki" and that's it. That isn't much of an article. --Rividian (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The leading web site for its field of specialisation, which is by no means a niche one. Searching for independent reliable sources is hindered by the extremely large number of (a) blogs discussing the site and (b) mirrors of parts of the site, but I have little doubt many more than those linked about could be found. Here at least is one non-trivial reliable source. JulesH (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Then prove it. I'm finding nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The sources provided by Uncle G and Raitchison seem to me to be reasonable coverage. Yes, the article may be over-detailed with unsourced stuff at the moment and could use some rewriting; but I'm pretty confident that this wiki is notable enough to satisfy WP:WEB on the back of the books and reviews provided. Additionally, JulesH's point about the difficulty of finding reliable sources amongst the huge amounts of other stuff is an argument in itself: even if one argues that this doesn't technically satisfy the wording of the notability guideline, this is clearly the primary source of canon Star Trek information on the internet and is very widely used. It certainly feels, to me, to be notable as per the spirit of the guideline. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically you're saying WP:USEFUL, WP:BIG, WP:ILIKEIT. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I simply don't see how this passes WP:WEB as the sources named are all trivial. Trivial sources put together, as Rividian says, do not create a non-trivial source. It just doesn't pass the criteria as of right now. I ask that the closing admin keeps this in mind. DARTH PANDA^duel 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the panda. Several trivial sources aren't nearly as helpful as even one non-trivial source. Anyone arguing for a keep seems to be thinking either that the house will build itself or is just saying "but, but, but it's the biggest Star Trek wiki, how can you POSSIBLY delete it?!" Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) I'd certainly agree that some (or even most) of the content in the article needs to be sourced or removed. But having just a quick look at some of the sources readily available (ie a Google News search), I'm seeing one fairly substantial entry [1]. Certainly most other mentions are trivial, but given that this seems to be pretty much the number one example choice for a newspaper article about fan wikis it seems to me to be worth at least a stubby article to describe it. I'm arguing for common-sense application of the notability guideline here. This is far from exemplary as far as website articles go, but it certainly seems in my view to be worth including. ~ mazca ^t|c 20:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That site won't even load for me, and it's just a "site of the week" that I'm sure isn't a substantial source anyway. Furthermore, it's only one reliable source if at all. I don't see how a bunch of trivial mentions is "common sense". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I can read it. It's a 4 paragraph, 285 word, review of the web site. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong keep per User:Mazca -- Mvuijlst (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think the sources are that strong? I sure as heck don't, and that sure doesn't help the process any when you're simply dittoing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I do. Do you really think they aren't? Sheesh. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Memory Alpha has had nontrivial coverage in the Charlotte Observer, Florida Trend, and the New York Times, satisfying WP:N. (I note that its Alexa rating is 24787. Is that good?) Edison (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • O RLY? The articles are about wikis in general, not about this wiki itself. They don't seem to constitute non trivial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Alexa rating makes me think of WP:GHITS and WP:BIG, unfortunately. And the "nontrivial coverage" is meager enough to be trivial. DARTH PANDA^duel 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Your estimation is merely that--your estimation. This is not a Rorschach test where you must produce associations as to what a stimulus makes you think of. I stated that I judged the references to be sufficient. I am certainly entitled to my own opinion. Is it necessary for those favoring one viewpoint in a deletion debate to chime in, in counterpoint to the views of everyone with a different opinion? If you have had your say, why not let it stand without endless repetitions. I am hardly an "inclusionist" in general. Edison (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Might I comment, then, that the lower the Alexa rating, the more popular the site? A 24787 isn't a very good score then. I obviously didn't want to say such a thing, as I am personally exhibiting WP:BIG, so feel free to ignore this comment! DARTH PANDA^duel 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep MA is a well-known website especially for trekkies: [2] [3] [4] [5] etc. The Google Page Rank is 5 — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And those are reliable how? The first link is a wiki, the second link is a trivial NYT ref. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (in article) It is a resource used by mainstream journalists for information on Star Trek related issues doesn't this fills the criterias for notability issues? It is a source for journalists. — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. Please read Wikipedia:Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability. What matters is whether people have written about the subject, not whether they have read it. That is what everyone else here is, rightly, discussing. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per inclusion of better sourcing and other fix-up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not an inclusionist, and I can see nothing really worth salvaging at this point. Nothing really that encyclopedic in the Wiki sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • encyclopedic in the Wiki sense could you explain your thoughts? To me, this wikia is an encyclopedic wiki and nowhere else could you find in that article so much informations onto MA (history, etc.). — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 13:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ottava Rima is making the mistake of abbreviating "Wikipedia". Xe means encyclopaedic in the Wikipedia sense. Whether Memory Alpha is an encyclopaedia is irrelevant. It's whether this article is encyclopaedic in the sense used at this encyclopaedia that is being discussed here. Uncle G (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep coverage provided above sufficiently meets V and N. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no way that this nomination meets WP:BEFORE as the article's notable title should obviously lead to something here and so deletion is completely inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Would you be open to merging/redirecting then? DARTH PANDA^duel 12:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a major web site/. This is about the extreme of deletion of fiction--first the characters, individually, then groups, then finally places with information about them. As for sourcing, GS search on "Memory alpha" wiki gives about 8 or 10 German articles using it as a major example, or otherwise discussing it in erms of either wikis, or fandom. DGG (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm disturbed by that hurtful and unjustified accusation of bad faith, DGG. You're normally better than that. Nobody is on a mission to remove coverage of fictional topics from the encyclopedia, it's just that some of us would like to see articles about fiction held to the same standards and policies as the rest of Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it as a general comment that this was illustrative of a trend. I certainly did not mean you were on such a mission, and I apologize for that.I see the wording did come out wrong. DGG (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it as levelled at me in particular, but at delete-leaning editors in general. But all is good now. Cheers. Reyk _YO! 01:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So many here are clearly against deletion so I'm posing a question (though this may not be appropriate for this forum). Does the ARTICLE deserve to exist? I'm almost sure some of the content should remain (which is why I suggested a merge/redirect). DARTH PANDA^duel 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not going to bold the word "keep" here because what I am going to say is not really supported by policy right now but I found it interesting that one editor said his search for sources was hindered by an assload of forum and blog postings mentioning the subject. As I recently said on Talk:Godwin's Law in response to someone who thought WP was "creating culture", the intent of WP:N is to make sure nothing becomes notable because of Wikipedia. It should not be possible to say nobody knew me/us/it/them from Adam until we got a WP article. If something is mentioned in enough forums, blogs, and Usenet groups independent of each other, I would say that it has become notable and therefore an article on that subject wouldn't significantly increase the level of the subject's notability. However, such a standard, if ever adopted, should never be applied to BLPs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Asserts notability and it took me less than a minute to find several books that discuss this resource. Google scholar has a few more. -- Banjeboi 15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. This one (and another one) leave no ambiguities. I like the In fact, the Star Trek wiki is one of the most impressive out there! remark :-) It is true and well-known among trekkers that MA has many more informations than startrek.com in specialized fields like technology and vessels ... It would have been a shame this article disappear from WP: it gives meta-informations onto it that you cannot find elsewhere, thanks to WP. — STAR TREK Man ^{[Space, the final frontier...]} 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For those trying to suss out the history this is actually the fifth AfD with all previous four AfD's keeps after this featured article had been demoted. Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 2 and Articles for deletion/Memory Alpha 3 are the same AfD. -- Banjeboi 15:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was not at all difficult, nor comprehensive. Wikipedia would without question be a poorer encyclopaedia with the removal of this article. This discussion shows a typical failure to consider an article's potential, rather than current state. Skomorokh 16:01, 5 December 2008 (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.