Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Al-Batani (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 Delete and Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. Cbrown1023 talk 01:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

USS Al-Batani (Star Trek)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete An article about a Star Trek starship that never once appeared on screen and never played a significant role in any episode. AlistairMcMillan 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:N is the notability guideline for Wikipedia, and says "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." This article has no such references, and none are likely to be found. A Wikipedia-like source is cited which is devoted to Startrek, but that is inherently unreliable. The other possible cite is to the episode where it is mentioned, but that is not independent. Inkpaduta 14:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect as I stated when I de-proded. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class. FrozenPurpleCube 19:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the obsession with redirects? Two (count them, two) articles link to this page.  The "List of Starfleet starhips..." doesn't actually say anything about the ship that isn't already covered in the Janeway and Paris articles, what the heck do we gain by keeping this as a redirect?  AlistairMcMillan 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What the heck do we gain by deleting? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The articles that link to this one, don't gain anything by linking to them. They already cover everything we know about the ship within themselves.  The gain, is Wikipedia being tidier by not keeping useless redirects (and associated page history) around when there is no need.  AlistairMcMillan 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I might well ask what's the obsession with deleting the redirects. It's a simple solution and any concerns about clutter would be better addressed by improving Wikipedia's software and hardware.  FrozenPurpleCube 03:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Excelsior class starship (Star Trek). --EEMeltonIV 21:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Which episode told us the Al-Batani was an Excelsior class? The ship never appeared on screen. AlistairMcMillan 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No episode; secondary source (ST Encyclopedia) gives its class and registry #. --EEMeltonIV 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the encyclopaedia is a primary source in this case then. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Primary non-canon source. So basically we don't know what class the ship would have been if it had ever appeared on screen.  Not the best idea to redirect to Excelsior class then.  AlistairMcMillan 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The vast amount of information is what makes wikipedia great. This is that kind of things that is so notable with wikipedia in comparison to other encyclopedias. Ask yourself what encyclopedia would have such great nerdy information like a complete listing of all episodes of every damn TV series or an explanation of the timelines in 'Back to the future' Movies. Just like that kind of information makes wikipedia great, this information adds equally to the greatness. Lord Metroid 22:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * All we know is that Janeway served on the Al-Batani and at some point Owen Paris was captain of the Al-Batani. That is all we know about the ship.  That is not enough to warrant a whole article.  Stubtastic articles like this do not make Wikipedia great.  AlistairMcMillan 17:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:N Kyaa the Catlord 09:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete -- only notable through the Paris/Janeway connection, which is covered elsewhere; not seen on-screen; not significant veseel in and of istelf -- Simon Cursitor 12:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOT. - Peregrine Fisher 17:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:FICT: "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." No real-world notability, no reliable sources cited. Take it to a fan wiki. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  23:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Commet Let us at least consider merging these articles of lesser vessels in Star Trek to one article and redirect. That way the information is adequate for an article and preserved for interested people as well as easier to maintain. Lord Metroid 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Redirect to List of Starfleet starships ordered by class per above. VegaDark 08:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per IslaySolomon. Suriel1981 09:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FICT this is nothing more than a small part of a plot summary. Nuttah68 12:04, 26 February 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.