Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Star Trek

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 keep. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fictional timeline appears to be almost entirely original research. It is largely an attempt to use dates stated during various episodes of the TV show to construct a fictional timeline. Little notability either as this topic has not, to my knowledge, been covered by any sources outside of Star Trek products. Daniel(talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic is notable being documented in sources such as:

• A Timeline of Stardates
• Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future
• Star Trek Fiction Timeline
• Timeline of Star Trek Production
• The Star Trek Annotated Timeline

Andrew (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appears to have enough independent third party sources to be GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep But clean up drastically. It does meet notability standards but we don't need to go into the gritty details. A broad picture of how the time line between the major shows, and key events that define the universe, but we should no way try to be reconciling the inconsistencies of the time line. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article needs work, but it is a Keep - there are WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above passes WP:GNG and is well sourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2014 (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.