Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akira class starship


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Akira class starship
As per administrator AllistairMcMillan's admonishments on the Akira talk page, I hereby nominate the Akira Class Starship for deletion because the article is entirely original research. Neocapitalist 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose I never said the page should be deleted. I just said that, after he blanked the page, that blanking is considered vandalism and if Neocapitalist wants to delete the page this is way to do it.  See the talk page.  This is really a dispute about content with a friend of his.  PS I never said the entire article is original research either, just to be clear. AlistairMcMillan 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused; I thought you said screen evidence was original research. BTW -- where do you get that I am Alyeska's friend?  Neocapitalist 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I have no idea whether you are a friend of his or not. I do know that you are a member of the same forum though.  AlistairMcMillan 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep'. Per above. Tokakeke 00:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete According to AllistairMcMillan's interpretation of the rules this entire article is Original Research and should be deleted. See article discussion for further details. Alyeska 00:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - According to the Memory Alpha website this ship appears in ST: First Contact, DS9, and Voyager. This AfD may be in bad faith.  Ruby 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - it's on another wikistyle site, and apart from conducting original research, going by AM's definition, how do they get their information there? Another wikistyle site does not constitute a reliable source for a fact --Fearghul 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that Fearghul is one of Alyeska's friends from the stardestroyer.net forums. AlistairMcMillan 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And that has a bearing on anything? You are aware of the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem aren't you? I'm sure there's a page on it kicking about here somewhere. Fearghul 03:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, but the other wikistyle site is not involved in the pissing contest on this site, so it can be used to verify the existence of the ship alleged to be O.R. The individual specifications are a content issue.  All we're concerned with is whether to keep or delete the article.  Ruby 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It does raise the question though of why this is a pissing contest at all? I wonder what the reaction would be if the information was cited not as examining the visuals of the show, but instead as coming from a website examining the visuals of the show? Where would the original research axe fall then? Just something to consider. Fearghul 03:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The VFD was done at the suggestion of the AllistairMcMillian, an admin. Alyeska 00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidence this whole exercise is being done to make a WP:POINT because an admin hurt your feelings over a content issue. Ruby 00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - bad faith nomination to make a bad WP:POINT. The article's discussion page demonstrates this plainly. - Hayter 00:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As per AM's interpretation of OR, the article is original research. Psycho Smiley 00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that Psycho Smiley is one of Alyeska's friends from the stardestroyer.net forums. AlistairMcMillan 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that posting on a forum that deals with common interests does not have anything to do with the issue at hand. If you are referring to meat-puppetry, kindly come out and make the accusation. Psycho Smiley 04:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment A Wiki admin violating Wiki rules (article is POV because of refusal to accept information), quoting rules which do not support his position, and abusing his authority by threatening to block users. Alyeska 00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Look, uh, the Wikipedians who do AfD to keep the encyclopedia from filling up with 40 feet of compressed crap don't want to be babysitters. Ruby 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Undecided. To my knowledge the Akira class was never actually mentioned on screen by this name. Consequently, is it even canonical to use this name? Yes, the vessels based upon it have been shown (fleetingly), but has often been noted there are enough similarities with the Enterprise NX-01 that NX-class might be a more appropriate name. I can't put a vote one way or the other yet. 23skidoo 01:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Production staff, including the designer Alex Jaeger, use "Akira class" to describe this type of ship. AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Non-Canon by your own reasoning. Not said onscreen thus non-canon. Alyeska 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said everything is non-canon unless it appeared in dialogue on screen. Please stop mis-representing what I say.  AlistairMcMillan 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You stated that only information in the series is canon. Furthermore you do not support visual evidence.  The class name is from a source you do not support, TMs.  If you accept backstage information, then you have to accept in the very least TMs as well.  This just shows your inconsistencies and terrible logic. Alyeska 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said that I don't support visual evidence. I said I don't support your analysis of visual evidence.  Because your analysis is your original research.  I don't support the Technical Manuals, because (a) they are considered non-canon, (b) they are not consistent with the series itself and (c) the two manuals aren't even consistent with each other (even though one of the authors worked on both).  I've explained this all clearly a number of times now.  Please stop misrepresenting my words.  AlistairMcMillan 17:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stop repeating the Original Research argument. It is clear you do not understand what you are talking about.  I've read the rule and it does not cover what I am doing at all.  I am taking data straight from a canon source.  So it can't be original research.  BTW, the TNG TM doesn't have any information on the Akira.  It only has inconsistencies between the GCS class, and thats explained away in the DS9 TM by changes in the design.  And once again you've not actualy stated the rule which the DS9 TM violates.  You would write off the entire TM because it contradicts SOME information.  Stop cherry picking the rules AM.  If the TMs are inadmissable, then all non-canon information is inadmissable.  If visual analysis is original research, then dialogue analysis is original research and the entire article violates the rule.  Its a very simple concept of reality.  Pull your head out of your ass for once and try looking at reality. Alyeska 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please try to keep a civil tone. AlistairMcMillan 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then stop repeating the same disproven arguments over and over again. You can take issue with the numbers I've given, with the way I've presented them.  But the very method I am using violates no Wikipedia rules.  You constantly claim they do, but refuse to actualy go into detail how it violates the rules.  I've actualy quoted the rules themselves showing quite clearly that my methods do not violate any of these rules. Alyeska 18:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Let me say again, this is simply a content dispute with another editor. I oppose his addition of his own original research to this and other articles, so his friend blanked it.  I pointed out that blanking pages is considered vandalism and likely to get him banned and the proper way to delete pages is to AFD them.  Which brings us to this page.  AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And I thank you for pointing that out; I was being unbelievably stupid yesterday. :)  Neocapitalist 20:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as Trekcruft, leave the whole lot of it to Memory Alpha -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad-faith snit-fit over content dispute -- a long-running content dispute, at that. --Calton | Talk 04:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nice article on a Star Trek spacecraft. Passes WP:FICT i think. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hayter. Good article. Essexmutant 11:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not voting on this one, but I must say that although this probably does violate WP:POINT, it is a very good point; Alistair is being remarkably inconsistent in his application of the OR rule.  Rogue 9 12:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Another friend of Alyeskas from the stardestroyer.net forums. AlistairMcMillan 17:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are such a happy person always trying to jab people who disagree with you. Where he comes from is irrelevent.  Look as his history.  He is a valid Wiki member and your snarky comments are unwelcome.  As I'e said many times now.  Your attitude is very unbecoming for an admin. Alyeska 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Four people support your point of view. All four are regulars on the same forum as you.  I'm sure that is just coincidence.  AlistairMcMillan 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope I'm not being counted in that number, since I'm just opposed to Trekcruft (and starwarscruft, and all forms of fanboycruft for that matter). -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. I was just meaning the four people who are more interested in mis-interpreting what I said on the Akira Talk page that voting on this bogus deletion. AlistairMcMillan 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have something meaningful that you're getting at, say it. Otherwise, don't waste time with irrelevancies.  While I do post on SD.net, I'm not a Trekkie and don't particularly care about Trek in general.  This article means very little to me, but improper admin actions do interest me a great deal.  Simple observation does not constitute original research; as far as sources go, counting the weapons on a ship is no different in that regard than listening to Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech or looking up the text of Washington's first inaugural address; it's there for everyone to see.  The original research rule doesn't apply here, and I think you know that, because if it really did, you'd have shown how by now instead of simply repeating yourself.  As it stands, your definition of original research covers almost everything on Wikipedia, to say nothing of this article.  Or it would if you were even halfway consistent.  Rogue 9 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you don't have a particular interest in Star Trek then you may be unaware that there are no consist figures for weapon counts. Everyone looks at starships like the Akira class or the Nebula class and comes up with different numbers.  Alyeska has studied screenshots and come up with his own numbers.  That makes it original research.  And please remember, people who disagree with Alyeska's analysis are "stupid".  The idea with the rules about verifiability and original research is that we can point to our sources to back up our edits.  Alyeska can't do that because when he actually lists his sources, people look at them and come up with different numbers. AlistairMcMillan 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can look at the Enterprise and declare it is black too - not that this will be true, but the point is that opposition does not mean the death of an analysis. As long as Alyeska could justify his decisions for inclusion/exclusion of a suspected TT/phaser point, it is still valid. So put it up, along with any rebuttals, and let other people decide. That's what NPOV is - the explanation of various points of view. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. But it is not meant to be our own points of view.  This is not a discussion board, it is an encyclopedia.  The information we add to the encyclopedia is supposed to information that has been published elsewhere.  Wikipedia should never be a primary or secondary source.  AlistairMcMillan 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You must think people are stupid AM. I've PROVEN that what I have done violates neither verifiability or original research rules.  I've asked you to prove your case that they are and explain how it violates the rules and you have thus far refused EVERY SINGLE REQUEST.  I have gone out of my way to explain myself and give you a chance to prove your point.  You on the other hand repeat the same incorrect claims like a broken record and refuse to actualy defend your position with logical reasoning when challenged. Alyeska 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep'. Original research should be edited out of the article, but ships of this class do appear identifiably in one movie (Star Trek: First Contact) and several episodes of Deep Space Nine. Even if the name was never uttered on the screen, it is the best name currently available to identify the ship class, and an article containing what canon information is available (perhaps including anything pertinent from Star Trek: The Magazine and The Star Trek Encyclopedia, noting disputed canon status) is useful. WarpFlyght 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: I have no big interest in Star Trek, but I do have a interest in Visual Analysis of Sci-Fi, so here I am. Here is the crux of the issue, no? For some reason, people have a wierd and arbitrary Macro/Micro divide when it comes to visual analysis. For "macro" things (generally meaning entire ships or their general shapes), they tend to accept it. But for "small" things (even as big as the relative size of ships, let alone tiny torpedo launchers), they call it Speculation, Original Research...etc - all of which involve the base point of ignoring it. This is even though both involve looking at the screen and taking down what one sees. Why is one guy Original Researching because he looks more closely and sees more details than the other? Is it his fault that you aren't paying enough attention? Aren't the sources for both people the same, so in principle equally verifiable? As for detail disputes, as a Star Wars guy I can tell you sadly that even purported official sources can't find their butts with both hands and a flashlight. There are at least three "official" lengths in circulation about Executor. Does that mean no conclusion can be made? Of course not - all the lengths are simply written in some context on the page. I suggest Involved Parties do the same here - put up some Big Pictures of Akira, and circle all the points that are definitely torp tubes/phasers/whatever in red and the disputed ones in yellow, followed by a explanation of the disputed areas. That would provide the needed verifiability - everyone can check out the same picture and decide for themselves. IMO, either taking down what's shown in the film is Original Research, or it isn't. From the number of movie and anime descriptions I see on Wiki, most would consider this action Valid rather than Original Research. Imposing arbitrary Macro/Micro limits is IMO hypocritical and arbitrary. As for TMs, AFAIK they are not canon, so let's not include them - but the films and TV episodes are, so they can be looked at more closely. In any case, what's left of this page after so called "Original Research" is removed is so little that it might as well be combined into some other page. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment There is no original research in the article. Although under the AMs definition of original research the entire article is OR and thus should be deleted.  People are cherry picking here. Alyeska 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For anyone that cares at this point, please go and read the Talk page for yourself. Alyeska is plain and simple about what I have said.  AlistairMcMillan 17:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable triva and nerdcruft. incog 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep  TestPilot [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|48px]] 06:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Important series and known quantity in the Star Trek universe.  Jtmichcock 00:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.