Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Having spent a loooot of time when I first came to Wikipedia to clean up an earlier incarnation of this article (before another AfD smooshed a lot of random information to the end), it now occurs to me that this is all in-universey trivia and plot summary with no notability to the real world. --EEMIV (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Realized I previously nominated much of this content for deletion earlier, hence the awkward merge into the current article, such as it is. Memory Alpha's array of articles on registry numbers and prefixes already exceeds the (quantity of) content in this Wikipedia article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. For a couple of reasons. First, Trek is a major entertainment franchise and there is precedent for articles of this nature relating to the hardware. Second, it is sourced (granted, mostly primary sources but there are secondary ones out there if you look hard enough, and I don't adhere to the believe of some Wikipedians that primary sources are evil, especially with relation to fiction topics). Third, the fact a non-Wikipedia site like Memory Alpha covers this differently or in more detail is irrelevant; there's is misconception MA is part of Wikipedia and it has nothing to do with us, therefore we have no obligation to cater our articles to what they do (beyond a courtesy link or two, of course). A key thing here is that this article is confining itself, it appears, to on-screen references. Therefore WP:NOR isn't an issue. MA, if they do a similar article, can go into the more murky areas of including the books and comics. But I don't see a problem with this as it stands. 23skidoo (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned MA in response to any transwiki suggestions; I doubt anyone actually thinks MA and Wikipedia are related. Can you offer up anything to suggest the topic's failure to assert/establish notability? --EEMIV (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply – This should help . As noted by the link, there are more than just a handful of articles that deal with “Starfleet” ships.  Thus establishing “Real” world notability.  Hope this helps. ShoesssS Talk 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm a reasonable fan of Trek and all, but ... I really don't see the real-world notability of technical details of the Trek universe here. RayAYang (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Realize that Star Fleet Command, which is what several of those Google news hits reference, is a second-order real world derivative: a computer game based on a board game Star Fleet Battles based on the Original series and animated series.  I don't think this material is excessive given the scope of Star Fleet vessels in multiple fictional works. It's got references, and some to secondary sources, so passes V and N in my book. Jclemens (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia probably needs to fire up a "Starships (Star Trek)" article that includes some of the production info. -- in fact, it was poking around for a good starting point to work on that in user space that reminded me this article exists. However, this article (a catalog of the sequence of registry numbers and some truly minor starship classes) isn't much of a step in that direction. --EEMIV (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Overall, I'd rather see massive reconstructive surgery and renaming on this article, than to have it deleted and create another one from scratch. At least that way, the history is preserved, rather than blown away. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Multiple published works on the topic of star trek hardware establish its notability. Article includes relevant information of real world notability, specifically information on the model design processes that led to the assignment of different numbers to the different ships. JulesH (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean, other than quoting set/model designer Matt Jeffries on the process that led to the numbering system (ISBN 0-671-03475-8,, ISBN 0671002198)?
 * I was taking those into account. I didn't say there were no sources, I said there was no significant coverage. They provide trivial coverage, minor at best. Basically, those sources are not enough to satisfy WP:N. Jay32183 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator wants to use this material for some sort of rewrite and so the WP:GFDL requires that we keep this. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I were going to use much/any of this material, I wouldn't have nominated it. I'm instead looking for sources outside the franchise; content here I don't plan to squish info. from this article elsewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Deleting this and using sources to write a brand new article is definitely better than saving this and hoping sources match up. Jay32183 (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This is important enough, and there are sources. We have many articles which are essentially descriptive catalogs of semi-notable items. It's a good way to handle them. DGG (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge with - Startrek ships are certainly notable enough to deserve such an article, my only problem is the duplication betweeen this page and the by class page which seems to present most of the same information in a more clearer way. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

either keep or merge It could be merged into List of Starfleet starships ordered by class like mentioned above but the entries in this article sould be added before the tables of "ships of that class" so to keep the info. rdunn 11:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: I could allow this, could do with a few more inline ref towards the end of the article (from the "Class" section downwards) and I'm not really happy about the non-free image's fair use rationale (I'd prefer just a close up of the numbers), but that's not the article's fault. Should say though, I do applaud the nominators "growth", I too have had a similar journey :) Ryan 4314   (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2008 (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.