Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek Blueprints


 * 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 was Delete. There was an extraordinary amount of *puppetry (likely meat), almost none of which gave arguments based in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The consensus revealed that the article was primarily composed of original research and inherently unverifiable. — bbatsell  ¿?   ✍  16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Star Trek Blueprints

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Violates No Original research; plus violates Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff; Delete --Mhking 13:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is definitely an indiscriminate list. GhostPirate 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as the subject only of interest to fans of star trek and is not suitable as a topic in an encyclopedia. Mr. Berry 16:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete actually, I spent a while talking on the talk page with the author of this article. I had a hard time explaining verifiability.  The author kept trying to use the fact that it was mostly unpublished work as an explanation for the lack of references.  It looked like he had worked for a long while on the list and I was hoping that he would be able to find references for the most of it.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment would Memory Alpha be interested in this? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepI know I am in the minority here but on several levels, I believe this could be a valid article. The first is that there are millions of Star Trek fans out there.  In addition, from what I have read and seen, a majority of them are extremely advent fans, as I believe is proven by Jackilsfrm dedication to the article.  The second reason, looking at some of the extremely obscure articles that are included in Wikipedia, this one is not that bad.  The third reason, I believe Star Trek fans would find an interest.  Thank God, the final decision is above my pay grade.  Have a great day all. Shoessss 18:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Memory Alpha per Disavian's suggestion, due to violation of WP:NOT. Xarr 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * weak-Keep. Per Shoessss. But I think that the Reference Materials section is a restating of the list and should be incorporated into the original table.  Sorting it will be a big undertaking too.  Cheers. --EarthPerson 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki There are plenty of SF sites that would be happy to have this, but it's inappropriate here. -  Irides centi   (talk to me!)  20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Memory Alpha per Disavian, et. al. LaMenta3 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * KeepThis is an important tool for star trek fans with relation to fandom technical works. --Hutt359 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC) — Hutt359 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KeepThis is an VERY important tool for star trek fans with relation to fandom technical works or for CGI modelers !. --ZardoZ 10:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Jackillsfrm, originally, you could have put a  at the top of the page and had it removed.  It looks like the consensus will be delete.  Please incorporate the changes and see if you can find a place for the article at Memory Alpha.  And please don't be discouraged.  --EarthPerson 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply Memory Alpha has a policy unless the information is 101% form the show or a licensed publication they do not list it on there site. Since most of the items listed on this page are fan produced (and not sanctioned by the show) this page will not work on there site. So this is the death of this information. Like I stated earlier I have already tried to remove this page but the bot will not allow it.Jackillsfrm 14:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note :: There is also a non-canon ST-Wiki on Wikicities -- would it go there ? -- Simon Cursitor 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep!!! Keep this article. Star Trek is as much a part of modern culture as the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or Wica.
 * Note: moving comment from top of page to proper place at bottom of page... --Mhking 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps much more relevant to today's culture and our future then any of the above; as it's tenents teach acceptance of all and what can be done to make humankind worthy of future survival and space colonization.

Any info that disseminates information on Star Trek's Pardigm of the future should be welcome in any circles that are not anti-intellectual. Cpat36 12:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC) — Cpat36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: I'd like to make a few points about what you just said. First, even if we accept your basic premise, the thing is, the article isn't about all that stuff.  It's not about the tenets of universal acceptance or the Utopian future of Star Trek or the paradigm of the future, it's a list of blueprints of the ships.  Not even the blueprints themselves, just a list of blueprints that were made.  Some fine information for sure but whether it should be here is another question entirely.  Second, that last sentence is pure BS.  It equates to "If this is deleted, then Wikipedia must be anti-intellectual."  This with reference to an article that's nothing but a list of obscure art pieces done in connection with the show - and not even as part of the show's production, just as fan candy.  More than a bit of a stretch, and an almost comically exaggerated "all or nothing" kind of argument.  I think the list should find a new home.  There's plenty of free web hosting out there in the world.  Zaku kai 05:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep I do feel that this is a valid article and an important research tool, author of pageJackillsfrm 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Keep The Star Trek blueprints are no more or less important that many of the obscure stuff floating around wikipedia.--MPaquette 15:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * KEEP Wiki is for reference... these are reference materials... — Demented jedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment The status of articles on other similar topics has no bearing on a particular article. Also, it's quite possible that other stuff should be deleted, too.  And for good measure, Not every piece of "reference" material is notable in the context of an encyclopedia - taking that too far would make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information.  Zaku kai 16:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep Agree with MPaquette.--chrisweuve 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Quote from WikiProject Star Trek "WikiProject Star Trek was formed to foster the creation and improvement of Star Trek-related articles, and to establish guidelines for those articles. Its members endeavor to produce an authoritative reference on Star Trek materials (canon and non-canon), which is easy to read and has a consistent style." This article should not be deleated it should be moved over to this area.Jackillsfrm 14:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that all of the members of WikiProject Star Trek believe that articles need to be well sourced. This article is not well sourced at all.  In fact, it has no sources.  So, it clearly fails WP:V.  What's more, I know parts of the article are unsourceable.  "Many of the Blueprints are fan produced publications and do not have a publisher listed" (from the talk page).   ~a (user • talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would a image of each cover (thumbnail) be enough to show that the object do exist. If you are not allowing self published items (which often don't have a publisher) then you are not allowing non-canon, since most non-canon do not have an official publisher. If needed I can provide a link to a pages or ebay listing for 80% of the items on the list. I did not list this since I did not want this to be a shopping list and I did not use this as my basis for the existance of an blueprint. The purpose of this page is to allow the collectors to know what has been published. If you want me to I will provide a list of the lookup sites for people to look at if it will help, I would prefer not to have it on the wiki page since I feel that this would be a COI since I am one of the self-publishers on this list.Jackillsfrm 18:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that would still fail WP:V. "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources."  "Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor."  If you're referring to an unpublished document, then something must be published about it in a reliable source.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again these are not unpublished documents they are self-published documents that many do not list a publisher, it does not mean that it does not have a publisher, and many of these items can be looked up on the web, I will provide a list for many of them I just don't want it posted on the page in question since it would turn that page into a shopping list, which I think is bad. When you say reliable sources who defines what is a reliable source, the fact that many of these things are referenced on the web and also for sell on the web shows that they exist what is not reliable about that. I have never tried to coment on the content of each item just the fact that they exist. I would think that the fact that a number of them are for sell on ebay would prove the fact that they exist. If I was to quote something out of them I could understand the importance of what they say are factual, the fact that they exist is all the list states which can be proven for at least 80% of the list.Jackillsfrm 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "When you say reliable sources who defines what is a reliable source"? Good question.  Can someone else please help me answer this question?  Obvious examples of a good source would be like the Washington Post, or CNN.com, or something like that.  However, there's a huge grey area and policy is clear when it comes to allowing questionable sources for claims that are not exceptional.  I've looked through WP:RS and WP:V (and the new WP:A) and I see where sources of questionable reliability are defined:  "sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight".  But, like I said, sources of questionable reliability are considered acceptable in non-exceptional  circumstances.  ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: From WP:Verifiability of self-published sources: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field...Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. (or in other words, just because someone puts something in print themselves or creates a website doesn't automatically make them a reliable source; the self-published works you cite certainly fall in that category. Nothing you have presented here is compelling enough to make me reconsider my earlier cited decision.) --Mhking 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment If I was using information from inside the documents then your statement would be correct. The list only states that these objects exist not on the validity of their content. Example: The Unabomber's Manifesto Industrial Society and Its Future (which is listed on this site), while you might not be able to use what he says in the document as factual you can take the fact that this document exists as factual. The comment of the WP:Verifiability of self-published sources only works is you are using citing information from the content of the document, it does not work if you are only stating that this document exists.Jackillsfrm 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep - It's a very worthwhile guide to help those who are interested in such information. It won't "dilute" nor damage this site any more than a number of the TV Show or Movie pages here dilute the site. This list will be a great boon to those of us who are interested in such esoteric non-canon Trek items. Griffworks 04:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Griffworks — Griffworks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment: Zaku kai, Stop attempting to label everyone you don't agree with as making "implied all or nothing arguments." You cannot argue with the person's points, so you attempt to label them and turn what they are saying into some convoluted straw-man argument that only you are making.
 * Comment - Your implied all-or-nothing argument is flawed. Let's supposed that article X does, in fact, dilute and/or damage this site in a way that goes against the site's true mission.  Now, this list of blueprints doesn't damage or dilute the site more than article X.  Is the proper decision then, to A: keep the list, because it's no worse than article A exists?  B: delete both articles?  If you chose A, then what happens when someone AfD's article X, and then the same argument is used, citing this article as an example of why it shouldn't be deleted?  Remember that this process doesn't need to be fair - not in terms of being fully even-handed in terms of what is and is not deleted.  Zaku kai 20:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Respond to specific points - don't waste everyone's time in the transparent exercise of trying to turn someone's argument into something it is not and then explaining why your own contrived arguments are wrong.

Desist from putting words into people's mouths and "explaining" what they are "really saying" in their "implied arguments." Stop telling us why "what they really mean to argue" is wrong. Stop twisting their words and then trying to prove why your own twisted arguments are wrong.

You cannot argue with the person's points, so you attempt to label them and turn what they are saying into some convoluted straw-man argument that only you are making.

Cpat36 10:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC) — Cpat36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I did provide a list of sites that showed that these blueprints did exist, they were not listed as reference since they were not used in creating the list. Also part of my concern was that if I posted this list on the page it would make the page a shopping list which is not the intent. I can prove that the majority of the objects exist but putting that on the page dilutes the fact that the page is for reference and not shopping. This is what I originally provided on the Discussion page of the List of Star Trek Blueprints ''Here is a few web pages that I found using "Star Trek" blueprints on google in about 15 minutes that I thought might help, I did not list these in the reference section since I did not use them to create the database. After that all I can think to do is send you a set of pictures that show the large pile of blueprints that I have. I eventually want to scan the covers of all of the blueprints and add them to the list, but this will take a little'' time

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/blueprints-main2.php

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Blueprints

http://www.calormen.com/Star_Trek/FAQs/reading-faq.htm

http://www.jackill.com

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Motion_Picture_Blueprints

http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/BLP.php

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek_Maps

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Geoffrey_Mandel

http://search-desc.ebay.com/search/search.dll?MfcISAPICommand=GetResult&query=%28blueprint%2C+blueprints%2C+schematic%2C+schematics%29&cgiurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcgi.ebay.com%2Fws%202F&ht=1&from=R10&currdisp=2&itemtimedisp=1&st=2&SortProperty=MetaEndSort&category1=152&srchdesc=y&BasicSearch

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Michael_McMaster

http://www.answers.com/topic/francis-joseph

http://www.calormen.com/Star_Trek/FAQs/blues_reviews.htm

http://www.the-blueprints.com/index.php?blueprints/startrek/


 * and here are a few new ones to look at that were not on the original page

http://members.aol.com/FdFrontier/

http://www.federationmodels.com/

http://www.intergalactictrading.com/shop.cfm?SearchFor=blueprints

http://search.stores.ebay.com/Starbase-Atlanta%20Inc_blueprints_W0QQfciZ6QQfclZ4QQfsnZStarbaseQ20AtlantaQ20IncQQfsooZ2QQfsopZ2QQftsZ2QQsaselZ2473121QQsofpZ0

http://stores.ebay.com/ksy-graphics

The problem with putting this information on the List of Star Trek Blueprints page is that it would turn it into a shopping list. So as you can see with just this quick search that the blueprints do exist at multiple sites. This total list was compiled in about 20 minutes just using "Google" searchJackillsfrm 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The link to your own website above is the only link that is broken. :) ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I used a comma in place of a period :oJackillsfrm 21:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - listcruft. Patstuarttalk·edits 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * REBUTTAL - List of Star Trek Blueprints

Lets look at the original reason listed for deletion:

"Violates No Original research; plus violates Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff;"

Lets look at "Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff" since this is the easiest to disprove.
 * Indiscriminate List Rebuttal - List of Star Trek Blueprints

First if you look at the Term Indiscriminate here is the defintion from www.dictionary.com:

in·dis·crim·i·nate

1.	not discriminating; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc.: indiscriminate in one's friendships.

2.	not discriminate; haphazard; thoughtless: indiscriminate slaughter.

3.	not kept apart or divided; thrown together; jumbled: an indiscriminate combination of colors and styles.

So this argument does not work for this list since it is not lacking in care, or just thrown together or jumbled.



Now lets look at the page that "Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists of stuff" here is the exerpt from the page:

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not automatically mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:

--Its not a list of FAQ --Its not a travel guide Its not to honour a friend Its not an instruction manual Its not an Internet Guide Its not a text book Its not a plot summary Its not a Lyrics database
 * 1) Lists of  Frequently Asked Questions. Wikipedia articles should not list FAQs. Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s).
 * 1) Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder.
 * 1) Memorials. Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.
 * 1) Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks.
 * 1) Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples.
 * 1) Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach a subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles which read as textbooks, with leading questions and step-by-step problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects Wikibooks and Wikisource
 * 1) Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
 * 1) Lyrics databases.  Most song lyrics are protected by copyright.  Exceptions include traditional songs whose lyrics are in the public domain. However, even in this case the article may not consist solely of the lyrics, but has to primarily contain information about authorship, date of publication, social impact, etc. Source text generally belongs on WikiSource.

From what I have seen for the claim of Indiscriminate list does not hold based on what is on this page and the definition of Indiscriminate.A list of the works of Shakespeare is not an Indiscriminate list, an indiscrinimate list would be a list of things, no order no relevance to each other each, chosen at random to be in the list




 * Original Thought Rebuttal - List of Star Trek Blueprints

Now lets look at the page that "No Original Thought" here is the exerpt from the page:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not heretofore published. Please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:


 * 1) Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites, and Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example,  citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is  verifiable and is not merely the editor's  opinion.

This is not Proposing Theroies and solutions

This is not an original idea

This does not define terms

This does not coin new words

The only Semi-Valid part here is - Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals, but please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. I have already added a Reference list and a number of links that prove that these exist. As the quote states "please strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable" which I have done by stating where the documents can be looked up at. It also states that "Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals" which allows reference from sites that show the objects exist. The main reason that I did not put it on the main page is I did not want this reference material to become a shopping list. I address Validity on the third section of this rebuttal

Its not an Invention'''
 * 1) Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it.  Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day!'''

Its not an personal essay Its not an opinion Its not a discussion forum Its not a news report
 * 1) Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome in your user namespace or on the Meta-wiki. There is a Wikipedia  fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles.
 * 1) Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.
 * 1) Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant  talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.
 * 1) News reports. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Wikipedia is not a primary source. However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source. Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recent verified information.

So this does not conflict with Original research statements except for the "Verifiability", but only to a point as discussed below.


 * Actual Issue with this document is "Verifiability" - List of Star Trek Blueprints

The only thing that has anything to do with this document is the Verifiability which was not the original claim for deletion. I can add links that show the majority of these Item exist, the only problem is that it would make this a shopping list which is not a good Idea and would not match what Wiki is for. So the problem is having verifiability on the page itself, not that they can not be verified Jackillsfrm 17:52, 31 March 2007 (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.