Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quatloo

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. WjBscribe 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quatloo

Seems too trivial to have its own article. To be honest, I'm suspicious whenever "fandom" is mentioned... JianLi 21:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the episode article. The other usages give it just enough weight that I'd rather have a redirect leading somewhere rather than nothing. FrozenPurpleCube 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no reliable third party sources presented to support the existence of this article. None at all. RFerreira 04:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree that it should be merged with the series that the currency is used. Unless a decent overview, usage, history, exchange rate and other detailed information can be posted on the subject, it's best posted as part of the game's article.--Kylohk 22:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant Merge to the epsiode article. It might be a good idea to create a stub at Quatloos! for the notable website. I concur that it has become an in-joke, but has not been much published (even within fandom) because of fears of legal action. The lawyers have turned a blind eye toward Star Trek fan productions, but they might look less kindly on possible trademark violations which dilute a trademark, rather than enhance the trademark. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking sources for real world context. May not need mentioning within another article, or preserving any of this content. I have no problem with creating a new redirect after deletion if it will help deter recreation. Jay32183 20:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as is The primary function of an encyclopedia is to be a reference source for anyone seeking an explanation on any given subject of interest. I just reached this article myself precisely because I looked up the term quatloo after coming across an instance of it being used outside of any given trekkie context. The term itself clearly is at least appearing in the real world even if it's origins is not the real world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.209.254 (talk) 05:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC). — 67.183.209.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This argument is WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. It doesn't matter that the information is true if it can't be properly sourced. Jay32183 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to episode article; not everything referenced in Star Trek is worthy of an article. Fictional money used in a single episode is streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching it more than a bit. Carlossuarez46 21:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wager 400 quatloos that this article will be merged! —phh (^t/_c) 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as is This came up in conversation during a Terrace game, and we needed to find out what a Quatloo was, thankfully finding it here. Please do not remove it!
Wait a second! Did someone just say this was used in a single Star Trek episode??? And we're debating whether or not it should be kept/merged/deleted? SERSIOUSLY? RFerreira 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, delete. Far too trivial. RFerreira 04:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it as is I don't see the problem. I just accessed the article and it was useful to me. The information is verifiable and noncontroversial. Why do articles have to meet some sort of arbitrary standard of independent importance? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charvakan (talk • contribs) 14:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC). — charvakan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't know why articles have to meet any standard of importance. But they do. See WP:NOT#IINFO.--JianLi 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Throw it to Memory Alpha if they dont want it ... delete it. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 19:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gamesters of Triskelion per general pattern of one-time-appearance characters, ships, widgets, etc. etc. redirecting to episode in which they crop up. Trivia section/fan use section is, well, trivial and not verified/verifiable. --EEMeltonIV 03:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-terminate. Quatloo 01:13, 8 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.