Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Species which are indistinguishable from Humans

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
Inappropriate POV, opinion, speculation, essay. --TribbleFurSuit 05:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, no links, even after discussion of de-orphaning. --TribbleFurSuit 06:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Keep the article -- this is a category to which many many aliens belong to, based on viewer observation. No speculation involved. POV will be difficult, but not impossible, to establish, so we'll have to state things carefully, but that's not a reason to delete it. -- Captain MKB 05:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keeping in mind that not even Romulans are indistinguishable from Vulcans, and we know they were once one in the same; how can we confidently say, without speculating, the same for this list of species when we know even less about them without making prejudgmental observations on their outward physical appearance? When it is all said and done, this is same thing as all those "this is similar to"-comments that get pulled from articles on a daily basis. Delete --Alan 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete &mdash; Morder 21:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Some species require make-up and some do not, this is a production detail if nothing else. If we are incapable of talking about similarities between species in an in-universe context, we should change POV to deal with this limitation and not dismiss the data entirely on the basis that it is inconvenient to organize. Jaf 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Jaf
 * "it's inconvenient to organize"... who said that? That's not even partially, much less "entirely", the basis on which this is proposed. At any rate, in-universe POV most certainly won't do. Realworld POV with citations would be OK. By citations I mean a Westmore or somebody talking about how the species in question either was intended to be indistinguishable from humans OR were deliberately decided to require no makeup/prosthetics. Or, regarding the concept in general, a reference work or other credible realworld source having something to say on the subject. Stuff that's ostensibly "based on viewer observation" is routinely deleted here; that by itself doesn't pass the O.R. test. Verifiability, objectivity and noteworthiness are the bar here. I have begun to concede the noteworthiness, but I haven't yet seen the other two legs to hold this up. --TribbleFurSuit 23:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A face without make-up is a verifiable object, organizing that as data struck me as the issue at hand. Jaf 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Jaf
 * Delete. I agree with Alan's comments.--31dot 23:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – a citation from a "real world" POV comes from the Star Trek Encyclopedia.
 * "Most life-forms encountered in the Star Trek universe look remarkably similar to humans found on Earth. While this is probably inaccurate from a scientific point of view, it is one of the basic concepts that make Star Trek possible from a production practicality viewpoint. If one were to insist on radically different life-forms for all our aliens, the result would be that Star Trek would only be able to afford a fraction of the episodes that it does...Gene Roddenberry also noted that while showing strange, new life-forms was a lot of fun, he felt that Star Trek more properly dealt with the differing thoughts, attitudes, and beliefs of the pantheon of life in the universe."


 * While stating the obvious, it is a real-world citation from production staff commenting on the existence of the phenomenon (and more generally humanoids).– Cleanse 02:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And that can all be conveniently placed in a more appropriate place – rather than an awkwardly titled page name, made up on a whim – such as the aforementioned humanoid article...or even human, both of which entirely lack any sort of relevant background information. --Alan 02:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said on the talk page when I made the article, move it, but don't delete it. You full-timers can work out the bugs. Jaf 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Jaf
 * Re:Alan. That seems reasonable.– Cleanse 07:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename. --Pseudohuman 13:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC) (please everyone also read: Talk:Species which are indistinguishable from Humans where much has already been discussed and suggested)

This wiki does have consistent conventions and a certain philosophy that every 3rd person isn't welcome to contravene. If people at times seem jaded when pointing out how something can be improved, it's because so much non-compliant stuff is contributed and cleaned up here every day. One can become blunt in one's manner, but that's not personal nor an insult. You know how you can tell? No namecalling, hyperbole, nor distortion. It's also nor personal nor an insult when someone responds to an attitude like "don't delete [my page]. You full-timers can work out the bugs" with a very appropriate observation about your own apparent lack of willingness to participate in that and your own understanding of this wiki's conventions and philosophy. You're the one who has a stake in this. Don't get mad when the people you want to fob it off onto would rather not do it for you, especially after many of them provided very effective feedback about how to make your piece consistent with MA's mission. What's been made clear at the deletion discussion is that a piece like this might indeed be welcome here, if certain matters are addressed as to its level of quality, objectivity and relevance. If that's not good enough for you, then "here's my idea, YOU GUYS FINISH IT UP" is just not likely to happen. The problem is not that you don't "spend 8 hours a day thinking about Star Trek", it's that you don't appear to care to learn about what MA's conventions and philosophy are and how to make this contribution match. --TribbleFurSuit 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Regarding the "work out the bugs"-comment, one can only return: It would have been nice if you just had worked out at least the most glaring ones yourself, especially if your "understanding of the wiki format" (especially this wikis format) is as good as you make it out to be. That aside, the comments made by Alan and TribbleFurSuit are spot-on. In-universe, we know that even species looking the same may be distinguishable from each other, so we mustn't assume this to not be the case here as well. That means, unless some character mentioned how "species X is indistinguishable in any way from species Y", we shouldn't keep this as an in-universe article. Real world is an option, but not if there's nothing backing it up as far as verifiability and objectivity are concerned. I see that we apparently don't have any articles about make-up effects used in the various series, so maybe "Star Trek make-up effects" would be a good article to have (with proper citations). This article could then have a section about alien species designs not using make-up. -- Cid Highwind 14:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten that editing on this wiki required taking insults. I created the page because I wanted the list and I thought someone else might find it interesting to know which species look like humans. I'm sorry that I didn't spent "enough" time researching the perfect page title, but you can't seriously expect average people to spend 8 hours a day thinking about Star Trek. I'm glad you guys exist, but I wish you didn't have to be so damn cruel and elitist. I was only trying to help. Jaf 15:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Jaf
 * If all you want is to have a list, you're always welcome to have it in your own userspace (for example: User:Jaf/Species which are indistinguishable from Humans). If you want a mainspace article, that's also possible, but not if the many helpful and well-intended recommendations about how to achieve the appropriate level of quality, objectivity and relevance are rejected.


 * Keep. The fact that in the Star Trek universe there are countless species that are outwardly indistinguishable from Humans is an issue that should not be ignored. -- Datalore 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can't we just resolve this by renaming the page to something like "Alien species without make-up effects" real-world POV list page. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that resolution. Also I don't think it is appropriate to discuss user behavior at this lenght in article deletion discussions, isn't that what the user talk pages are for? --Pseudohuman 09:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP. Agree with Captain MKB and Datalore points. -- Krevaner 02:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin resolution
No apparent consensus for outright deletion, so moved to Star Trek make-up effects, to become part of a realworld article about make-up in Trek production. Still needs MUCH work, so start now, or it will eventually be suggested for deletion again. -- Cid Highwind 15:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)