Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Global warming

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "". In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.
 * If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
 * If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
 * If a consensus has been reached, an administrator will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

Deletion rationale
First off, it is fanon. I don't remember anything about global warming even being discussed in Trek, and certainly not "solar shields" fixing it. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Global Warming, and sea level rise will soon happen unless solar shields cool it down and transporters teleport cubic kilometers of ocean onto the Moon or Mars.

If solar shields and transporting didn't fix the Global Warming in Star Trek's future, how was it solved then? Please don't say Global Warming never happened because it is already happening. --70.179.175.240 08:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I fully realize that global warming is real, in the real world. That is why has a very good article on it. Star Trek, though, is NOT real, and is NOT our future, present, or universe. Remember that we did not fight Eugenics Wars in 1996, we did not have an orbital nuclear warhead platform destroyed in 1968. Unless global warming was mentioned in Star Trek, it doesn't get a mention in a database of what was in Star Trek. We aren't saying it didn't exist in Trek, just that we don't know anything about it there. We most definitely cannot go speculating as to how they dealt with it there, that simply is not the purpose of Memory Alpha. If you want to write a fan fiction on the subject somewhere else, somewhere that accepts fan fiction, that is fine. No one is stopping you from having a personal belief on the subject, it just doesn't belong here. Might I recommend the Star Trek Expanded Universe wiki? They are specifically geared at fan fiction like this. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete: The validity of global warming has no bearing on the discussion. Plenty of things are real, but they don't necessarily have anything to do with Star Trek. Were there to be any references to global warming on Star Trek, it would be fine. Otherwise, its just a page to perpetuate an idea often associate with specific political beliefs. Cite sources for its relation to canonical Trek sources, or delete it.Hossrex 08:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete before my head explodes. -- Renegade54 13:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. 31dot 23:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete quick, fast, and in a hurry. --From Andoria with Love 05:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Delete. --Jörg 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to "Massive Rewrite". Earth's global warming hasn't been mentioned in any episode or movie (I checked the scripts and transcripts). Global warming as a general phenomenon has been mentioned in one episode,, though. In that episode, Data mentions that Peliar Zel's Beta moon will experience "rising temperatures, erratic tide surges and in general the beginning of global warming" if the people of Alpha moon don't stop tapping into the moon's energy fields. Rewrite that article to only reflect that reference and move it to Global warming. Now, if a novel or comic mentions how global warming was dealt with on Earth in the 21st century, it can be added in a short background note. The main part of the article should only reflect the Beta moon reference, though, as we are not here to list what did NOT happen on Earth in the Star Trek universe. --Jörg 06:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, there. Are we absolutely sure that global warming was never mentioned in Star Trek? I, for one, can't cite the episode, but before we just follow the bandwagon to this article's extinction, we should at least think hard about whether the words made it into an episode. Some explanation of why global warming was stopped does sound very. . . Picard/Archer/Roddenberry to me. The article contends that such an explanation was given at some point in Star Trek history, but doesn't cite it. Let's give the opportunity for citation before we reflexively hit the delete button.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  02:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And on the basis of Jörg's research, above, I say Keep, move to Global warming, and rewrite as indicated.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  11:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would further suggest that heavily implies that global warming is the fate that awaits Kronos because of the destruction of Praxis:
 * SPOCK at the opening briefing: "We believe it was caused by overmining and insufficient safety precautions. The moon's decimation meaans deadly pollution of their ozone.  They will have depleted their supply of oxygen in 50 Earth years."
 * Sounds like global warming to me.  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  12:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Still... if the rewrite isn't begun in the next day or so... this'll still be deleted, and it can be recreated when someone wants to write it properly. -- Sulfur 13:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I still say delete. There is no mention of solar shades or transporting vast areas of ocean to Mars anywhere in Star Trek.  Clearly, based on the first statements on this page, the intent was to make a political statement about global warming in the guise of an article.   doesn't have to do with warming, it has to do with UV radiation irradiating oxygen-producing plants.  Other vague references to warming could be mentioned on those planet's pages. 31dot 20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Major Keep, based on mention in . It's an actual occurrence that happens to some planetary bodies from time to time.--Tim Thomason 22:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, and as the original nominator, does that end this discussion? I had not recalled when I nominated this. It still needs a complete re-write, though. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, because as it currently stands, it is fanon garbage. Concept of the article?  Good.  Current content?  Really bad.  Apparently Tim's rewriting it as we speak, and if that's completed shortly, we'll be happy, close this up, delete that first ghastly revision, and be happy.  If not, we'll delete the article, and let someone (Tim?) recreate it from scratch. -- Sulfur 22:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Admin resolution

 * With the complete rewrite, old crap revisions removed, and the article kept. -- Sulfur 22:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)