Memory Alpha:Votes for undeletion

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

[edit] Usage

Please make sure you have read and understood Memory Alpha's undeletion policy before editing this page.

When listing a new page, it is helpful to refer to the deletion archive for the original discussion, stating the reasons why it was deleted in the first place.

Related Pages: Deletion guidelines, Votes for deletion, Images for deletion, Possible copyright infringements, Deletion log

---

[edit] Pages suggested for undeletion

[edit] Soulless minions of orthodoxy

The deletion discussion for this page is here. The page was deleted because it was a euphemism that didn't refer to a specific group. I disagree with this as a reason for deletion.

I would start with the proposition that MA articles may be written on anything seen or referenced in a Star Trek episode. Elias Giger claimed a group was following him, and this group's (non)-existence and their alleged actions were an important part of "In the Cards". We have articles on the equally fictional USS Lollipop, Corbomite etc.

So would you not say it would be fair enough to have a page on this alleged group? And if naming the page, we would choose "Soulless minions of orthodoxy", Giger's term for them.

We have a page for the Old Ones (extragalactic) - an authority known by no other name, equally euphemistic.

To reply to R54's statement that we wouldn't have pages on "the powers that be" or "unwashed masses" - why not? If these got mentioned repeatedly (like the Soulless minions of orthodoxy), why should we let the euphemistic name stop us from documenting their alleged actions?

As for the idea that the term doesn't refer to a specific group ... how do we know? It seems more to me that Giger is referring to lots of organisations and people being affiliated with one secret group. It's like he's claiming the Illuminati is stopping him. How do we know the Old Ones (extragalactic) were one monolithic entity?

As for the supporting delete comment: "Why would anyone think this needed an entry?", MA has no notability requirements for in-universe articles. We have articles on fictional (in the ST universe) things that are much, much, more obscure (like firomactal drive).– Cleanse 06:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Leaning towards Oppose undeletion. This case is a little different than a simple fictional object or group. He's not making it up for a story(like Lightning shield) or as a deception (like Firomactal drive), he is because he's paranoid(and I took from the episode that the paranoia was based on some kind of mental instability).

If it was simply a case of not knowing whether or not it was an actual group, I could understand having this article. This 'group', though, would seem to be a paranoid rambling. I don't think that merits an article. It would be like having articles on the images of Kira and Damar in "Waltz" or of mirror Archer's image of our Archer in IAMD. --31dot 09:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue at all. Since when do we delete things based on a value judgment of their likelihood/ truthfulness? The article can (and did) state that it was part of Giger's paranoid delusions.

We have numerous pages on other delusions.

• Piotr Chekov was a delusion, and has a page.
• Several pages on things in Riker's delusions in "Frame of Mind" - Budrow, Starbase 29
• Likewise for the Doctor's delusions in "Projections" - Kaplan (Doctor), Frank

The reality of these is questionable, but yet they have a page.

We also have Giger's Cellular regeneration and entertainment chamber as a page, and this "technology" is equally crazy. – Cleanse 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As to your examples, your first one was a creation of the entity plaguing the ship, not a random delusion of Chekov. The delusions of Riker and The Doctor were drawn from their memories, and so have a basis in reality. The Chamber, though having a questionable usefulness, was an actual piece of equipment.

As far as we know, he wasn't talking about anything other than the general public whom he perceived as being after him. That might warrant a mention on the Slang page, but without something to suggest that it wasn't just the public, I don't think we need to bring this article back.--31dot 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to refer to a specific group, just saying that "Those that follow orthodox things are following me!" I doubt it was deleted on the grounds it wasn't real in the trek universe, just that it was a loose saying - not really about anything. Just like we don't need a page for "whatsit-bags of mostly water" from the early TNG ep, or "those that walked beneath the raptors wing" from ENT. Anything the page would say can be said on Elias's page imo. - AJ Halliwell 20:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

He certainly thought they existed in some capacity, and were responsible for Bathkin's death:

• GIGER: "I haven't done anything wrong and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy. I haven't broken any laws! Except perhaps the laws of nature. So stay away from me!'"

...

• GIGER: "Since you are not, in fact, working for the soulless minions of orthodoxy that have hounded my work and plagued my existence..."

...

• GIGER: "Unfortunately, before he could finish his work, Doctor Bathkin later died in a shuttle accident -- or so they say -- but while the soulless minions of orthodoxy refused to follow up on his important research, I could hear the clarion call of destiny."

...

• NOG: "Maybe the soulless minions of orthodoxy finally caught up with him."
• ODO: "The who?"
• JAKE: "We don't know who they are, but they were after Doctor Giger's Cellular Regeneration and Entertainment Chamber."

...

• GIGER: "You betrayed me! You turned me over to these soulless minions of orthodoxy! Well, they won't discover the secret of my work without a..."

There is certainly no lack of references, and we've written articles on far less. --Alan 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No one has denied there were several references to it, but to what is the question. There is very little evidence that it is anything more than a reference to the general public, perhaps represented through a government(possibly the Federation, assuming this guy was human).

I would be curious as to how much less than this you could get to write an article about.....--31dot 21:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"Institute" and anything else we list that is "unnamed"... --Alan 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not we could write something is not the question, whether or not we should is. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 22:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW. This reminds me of "The Beast" with many heads, which was to some Americans in "Future's End, Part II" the force that drove the world toward collectivity manifesting itself as the Federal government. (I don't know if that should be noted in Devil or USA article, both, or have a page of its own ...) --Pseudohuman 22:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that should be noted on both the USA page and the Slang page. As said above, this "minions" group(assuming they exist at all) could also be noted as slang.--31dot 22:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)