Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship class


 * 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. Not pretty sure what dabbify means, but if it addresses the WP:NOT issue per nom I have no objections to creating split articles. - Mailer Diablo 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Starship class
This page is an indescriminate collection of information in violation of WP:NOT as the author(s) have randomly chosen several fictional universes and listed ships from said universes. There is no over-arching theme or analysis that makes this an actual encyclopedia article. Indrian 02:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't think it's random, so much as incomplete. Possible needs a clarification to Fictional Starship classes (see List of fictional spaceships).  And maybe better criteria.  But on the whole, I find it useful enough to meet WP:LISTS and better than a category since it allows for quicker red-link access.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The first problem with this line of analysis is that this is not a list, but an article. Now that, of course, can be resolved by renaming it, and if this article is kept, it should be renamed.  As to your second point, it is doubtful that this list will ever be complete, so it remains random due to its incompleteness.  Furthermore, it is indescriminate whether complete or not, as the items on the list have no relation to each other except that they all happen to be fictional.  As for usefulness, how is it useful?  Articles relating to each individual fictional universe undoubtably already has this kind of information, so it is not useful in that sense.  Any one looking for a specific ship or type of ship in wikipedia are unlikely to look up a list named "starship class" or "fictional starship class."  I cannot fathom that anyone would need to see all this information in one place, and even if they did, it would still fail WP:NOT. Indrian 03:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an article versus a list? I'm afraid I don't see the difference.  You'll have to explain what you mean.  And I'm sorry, but it's pretty obvious to me what the conection of the items are is, they are all classes of Starships in various fictional environments.  Now you may think the entries are random, but that's not true at all.  They are all spaceships from more or less notable series, grouped by series.  Given that people are most likely to do what they know first, and what attracts interest to them, I completely expect such things to go first.  Yes, it's not very systematic, but somewhat haphazard.  That's the nature of Wikipedia sometimes.  That's also why I agree it's doubtful the list will ever be complete, as I doubt that Wikipedia will ever be complete.  People are creating new content every day, but I doubt it's increasing at the same pace of new things to include are.  However, I point to this example of people wanting to look at Starships  presented as a visual comparison to size.  If people want to do that(Slashdot and Sci-Fi Weekly both gave it a nod)), I can easily imagine someone wanting to look at it on Wikipedia.  I certainly think it's useful.  Perhaps some people might work backwards from it as well, if they're looking to compare several classes or genres.  It's certainly no less useful than numerous other lists. You may not find it useful, I however, disagree.   FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind about the article/list thing, I figured it out. And yes, I agree it should be moved to something like List of Fictional Starship Classes, but I do not feel it needs to be deleted.
 * Split and dabbify - split into lists for each fictional universe, and then make this article a dab page linking to lists of starship classes by fictional universe. 132.205.44.134 04:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll note, that's already done for examples like the Trek universe which already has fairly complete coverage for their various entries. FrozenPurpleCube 04:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The introduction is basically original thought. The remainder of the article is an utterly unmaintainable, indiscriminate, fan list. Articles on the individual science-fiction franchises will inevitably be very thorough, but compiling an all-encompassing and comparative list of fictitious spaceships is ridiculous. Determining which spaceships are of equivalent notability is impossible, since none of them are real. Pure fancruft. --IslaySolomon 04:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem original thought to me. At most, it's a transference of the Naval Ship class article to Starships.  Something that would seem to be well, obvious from the fact that numerous documents on the fictional works say "This is a class of Starships" or equivalent.  But hey, you want to redirect to Ship class go right ahead.  I agree, though, that eventually breakdown by fictional universe will be helpful.  Since that's already being done though, I don't see the point in objecting, however.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not only are the first sentences original thought, they are not even provably true. Show me one place in a Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, etc. source where any of the following is stated, and I quote from the article: "By tradition, [a class] are [sic'] named after its first ship, known as the lead or class ship.  Classes of starships, like their naval counterparts, are used to save effort and money; it's considerably easier and cheaper to build multiple units to the same design than to develop a unique plan for every individual starship. It also simplifies maintenance, training, and procurement of spares (not inconsiderable factors for any service)."  While this is certainly ture when it comes to the real world, no proof exists that any of it is true in these fictional universes. Indrian 05:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so what you're saying is that the information is transference from the real world? Sorry, but I don't see how that fits the criteria of original thought.  It does for example, apply to Star Trek, if you look at some of the technical books for it, like the Star Trek Encyclopedia (or see  for something on the web.  It is minor, but it's what I can easily find online.) So at most, it's a little overbroad, since it might not apply to every example.  Feel free to rewrite it, I could concur with that, as I do think the article itself is slipshop.  FrozenPurpleCube 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Simply reporting naming conventions from a single sci-fi franchise isn't original research, but stating a theory on how those naming conventions inter-relate is. -- IslaySolomon 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Even when it can be observed in practice? I can accept some distancing from it, since it may not be true in every case, and I did try to reword the statement accordingly, but I'm sorry I just cannot concur with you that it's original research.  It's observation of readily apparent information, justified sometimes by outright statements (see some of the Trek books for examples).  If it's not in others, well, feel free to say which ones you know about and we can rewrite the text.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * delete Crufty fan essay. Artw 05:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, redlinks galore, treats fiction as fact, mostly just a list duplicated elsewhere. The intro is original research and highly questionable - plenty of the civilizations listed don't even use money, so how could they save it by using starship classes? An non-list article about the cultural history of fictional spacecraft might well be interesting; this isn't it.--Nydas 08:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Efficiency applies even if you don't neccessarily use money. FrozenPurpleCube 13:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It's original research to shoehorn real-world economic concerns (like efficiency) into fictional universes.--Nydas 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, whatever, I removed that section anyway, so that's a no longer something you can object to. I think it is still applicable, but it's not necessary.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Duplication of lists like List of Starfleet ship classes.  Other universes without such lists should create them for that universe alone, not lumping them in with every sci-fi ship ever seen on a TV screen.  --Mnem e son 11:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete as fancruft. Simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. Within specific fictional universes there may be enough WP:V information to create such an article as with List of Starfleet ship classes. But this reads like collector trading cards. --Dhartung | Talk 12:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Split and dabbify. Starship classes within a single continuum are notable things, but when putting all them together, they have nothing to do with each other, so it ends up being useless listcruft. J I P  | Talk 15:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Wikipedia is one of the premier sources for SciFi trivia on the internets, and deleting this would compromise its reputation as a world-class entertainment guide.  It's a bad encyclopedia, but a kick-ass guide to TV, movies, video games, pop culture, and porn, and it should stay that way.  Billy Blythe 17:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This list is just too broad and lacks added value to make it worthwhile. Any purpose it serves can be handled by a category.-- danntm T C 17:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not Redlinks, which may be very useful. FrozenPurpleCube 17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia is very good at this sort of article.--Poetlister 16:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC) --Sm8900 02:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Split and dabbify per previous recommendations. I think there's something here. It certainly doesn't deserve an article and the stuff on top is original research. However, it may deserve to be a list. Other lists are less than exhaustive yet legitimate. In short, I'm most in favor of making a category and least in favor of outright deletion of the list and its content without at least putting it to good use. Yes. --Maadio 17:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete wrong content, wrong title. Guy 23:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Split and dabbify Per JIP. Aggregating these into a single list turns what could be a number of useful article subsections in their own cosmologies into listcruft. Choess 23:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Islay and Nydas. Andrew Levine 01:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Islay Solomon. Angus McLellan (Talk) 07:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fancruft. It's enough having starship class articles for the individual franchises (or none, if said franchise is not notable enough for its own).  To be honest, I think it should all be transwiki'ed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate recepticle for data, or something like that.  Don't know it verbatim. --Kitch 23:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is PRECISELY what Wikipedia is good at. Our strength is in chronicling those corners of popular culture which might not end up in any "real" (ie, formally published) encylopedia, but are of major interest to users in certain fields. this page serves another vital role of such articles; ie, it serves as a forum and convergence point for fans of one genre through many different works, shows, franchises, etc, etc. Therefore, i feel strongly that we should keep this. Why shouldn't this be worth keeping precisely because of the people most interested in it, precisely as it is, such as, for example, science-fiction fans, budding writers, or those interested in the broad shape and pattern of speculative fiction, etc?
 * Delete per WP:NOT if notable put it in the franchises pages. No need for a huge indiscriminate list. Whispering(talk/c) 00:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Could do with a reformat and tidy, but everything there is notable. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Islay Salomon above. Sandstein 09:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Split and dab per JIP. Accurizer 21:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - too random to be encyclopaedic. Anything useful can be extracted by the editors of the main articles. BlueValour 03:38, 1 October 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.