Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek (2nd nomination)


 * 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   speedy keep. Nominated too soon after previous debate. Mgm|(talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete The article is filled with original research, there are NO authoritative sources on the subject of Starfleet starship registries and classes, the canon sources can't be used because they are primary sources, and the non-canon sources are almost guaranteed to be contradicted by each other. There is nothing worth saving in this article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I should probably also point out that the subject is the very definition of trivia. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: this looks like recreation of deleted materiel, let me check my archives, but I think this is stuff I suggested an editor take to the Trek wiki (sorry forget the name right now.) If it is, it is speedyable. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I cannot find it. It looks familiar, though. :-( KillerChihuahua?!? 17:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the arguments made ~50 days ago in the last AfD. There are certainly specialized encyclopedias that cover this. Hobit (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry but can you point me to the encyclopedia that discusses how Starfleet picks its starship registry numbers, or analyses the ranges of numbers? There are multiple published sources that discuss starships in Star Trek, but none go into this much detail about the trivia contained in this article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep this was nominated in December 2008 and kept then - repeatedly discussing articles that resulted in a consensus one way or another in the vain hope that consensus has changed is disruptive. Had I participated in December's discussion I may well have commented on the benefits of its deletion, but here the repetition is worse than the retention of the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this is too soon after a keep close. As fiction article standards are under active discussion, perhaps there might be a change in consensus in another 4 or 5 months, which would be a reasonable time to try again. This is case of "I didn't like the result, so let me try till I get it my way" DGG (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (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.