Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ship Classes of the Star Fleet Universe


 * 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.  Kurykh  05:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ship Classes of the Star Fleet Universe

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list of fictional spacecraft is mainly plot summary without any primary sources or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of this board game.--Gavin Collins 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 14:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Comprehensive, well-written, useful.  Not appropriate for Wikipedia, though.  Maybe with more sourcing and some real-world information.  Powers T 14:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unable to find any reliable verifiable source on subject. Fails WP:V and WP:NOR. Subdolous 14:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are tons of those. Just one example is The Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual, but there are numerous others.  What there may be a lack of is secondary sources.  Powers T 15:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree that this is not notable, fails WP:V and WP:NOT.  Cannot be cited from secondary sources Pilotbob 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Failing WP:NOT, perhaps. No secondary sources?  Perhaps that's true (at least those that satisfy WP guidelines).  But WP:V?  As Powers says, there's loads of primary sources about the Star Fleet Universe and all things in it.  --Craw-daddy | T | 18:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as self-evident Original Research, unsupported by any canon source. -- Simon Cursitor 13:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it original research? Powers T 14:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete someone should make it part of their web site, but not here--at least, not like this (too much WP:SYNTH). JJL 14:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What position is being advanced by the synthesis of sources? Powers T 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It seems to me that the comparsisons between ships, and the motivations given for building new ships, are a speculative synthesis of factual naval history and fictive Star Trek history to fill in the gaps. (E.g., where are in-universe or secondary source cites for: "Light cruisers were meant to be less expensive versions", "these ships operated more in role analogous to 20th century Coast Guard vessels", "the costs of keeping a strong force of heavy cruisers on the lines replacing losses was more than any nation could afford" (nations?), "Another workhorse design, destroyers often approached the heavy cruisers in versatility".) Without citations, it reads like someone who kniows naval history filling in what he or she feels most logically must have occurred. JJL 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Acutally, almost all of the comments were taken directly from the source materials (SFB ship descriptions and background materials published by Task Force Games). But, as I was sure that this was doomed from the moment the AfD was initiated, I hadn't commented.  As it is, when I created this article, I thought I was doing some good helping out those who had read other articles on the SFU and would like some more information.  As it is, it looks like I overstepped my bounds and have been slapped down quite throroughly for my efforts in this article and a dozen others that I poured a lot of effort into which now don't exist.  Forgive me for not realizing how strict the notability were, especially alongside some of the otehr cruft that has a more rabid following.--Donovan Ravenhull 06:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment References/citations would have helped (WP:V), though WP:N would still be an issue. Not everything that is good and useful is appropriate here. Can any of this be merged to another Star Trek article? You might at least bury it at a Talk page on some Star Trek page for future reference and merging with some other article. JJL 12:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well that's basically what it is. But the "someone" is the original authors of the published material, not the editor who added this article to Wikipedia.  =)  Powers T 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources/references. -- Dougie WII 17:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per others. Doctorfluffy 20:53, 2 November 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.