Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qo'noS
The problem with the article isn't notability, it's in the size and format. There is far more than necessary for this article (see Section 31 and Romulus and Remus (Star Trek)|Romulan homeworlds also). Most of Wikipedia, I'm starting to think, isn't notable enough "to garner attention from academic/third-party/'real world' writers". See Fuzzy dice, Arpita Mukherjee, Carmot, Chris Gibson (North Sea Delta witness), Cooties, Dibs, Fish of Oklahoma, Marcos Valdés, and Hate Plague for examples of pages that shouldn't exist but do. I am absolutely not saying that this article should exist because these others do; that would be in improper use of . What I am saying is that, as examples of Wikipedia's less-than-easily-referenced articles, they show that what this article has endured inasmuch as this "article has been without sources for more than five years" is not abnormal for Wikipedia. The threshhold, as I have been oft reminded, is not whether it '''is''' referenced as much as that it '''could be''' so. (I'm not as much a fan of that logic, but that's the "consensus".) This page could be significantly longer, larger, and more thorough. While not the best, it warrants at the least a hair's width above a "weak keep". ''There's so much better things to do than deleting articles of this size and nature even... such as fixing articles that need it, like the laundry list above...? Just a thought
— User:VigilancePrime, 06:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OSE (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)