Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Various unseen or stub Star Trek Classes


 * 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 of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED AS A BLANK ARTICLE VFDs on the separate articles should be resubmitted as a VFD for each article that is being considered for deletion or the articles should simple be merged -Husnock 04:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Various unseen or stub Star Trek Classes
"This is a series of Articles that, without exception, could be merged into List of Starfleet ship classes. They contain either one sentence description plus 2 or 3 ships known to be that class, or if it was never seen, just a couple ship names known to be that class. Some are even reproductions, adding no new text, to what was allready on the list. Should be merged.

- M ask  19:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Andromeda class starship
 * 2) Antares class starship
 * 3) Apollo class starship
 * 4) Cheyenne class starship
 * 5) Chimera class starship
 * 6) Deneva class starship
 * 7) Erewhon class starship
 * 8) Freedom class starship
 * 9) Hokule'a class starship
 * 10) Istanbul class starship
 * 11) Korolev class starship
 * 12) Mediterranean class starship
 * 13) Merced class starship
 * 14) Niagara class starship
 * 15) Peregrine class starship
 * 16) Renaissance class starship
 * 17) Rigel class starship
 * 18) Sequoia class starship
 * 19) Soyuz class starship
 * 20) Springfield class starship"
 * Merge into List of Starfleet ship classes. By the way, if you want to merge an article, you don't need to post it on AfD. Simply add the  tag to the top of the pages you want merged. -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???   ???   ??? 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 20:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all, per nom. Makes good sense. Just zis Guy you know? 23:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nom. BryanG 02:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. When merged the page becomes too long and it is no longer a list. The stuff conbined is just too much. Individual articles can be expanded if kept as individual articles. I couldnt even follow the original article version. -- Cool CatTalk 20:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many lists with more entries then this has. None of these articles has enough information to stand on their own, and with Star Trek off the air, none can be expanded to that requirement for the foreseeable future. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure they can be however this proposal if it suceeds will gurantee them to stay underdeveloped. For example Norway class has only been seen once with little info (even the designers computer files were corrupted). Yet it has developed into a full article over time. There are lots of usable semi-cannon resources for the ships. I for one do not claim to know all star trek and feel articles should be left alone for a while so they can develop. Articles that dont have enough information to stay on their own are called stubs which are welcomed on wikipedia. They are certainly much more usefull than what you propose: tens of redirects leading to one page quite hard to follow.
 * I am also intrigued at the purst of votes agreeing with you (judging from the timestamps). Interesting coincidence, wouldnt you say?
 * -- Cool CatTalk 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. My first accusation of sockpuppetry. I'm honored, but must inform you that you are, in fact, wrong. - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge all as per nom. If the list is well-edited, there is no reason why the list cannot live happily. Lord Bob 02:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because its unreadable. -- Cool CatTalk 02:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case, in my view, the list would be poorly edited. See what I'm saying here? Lord Bob 02:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Merging seems sensible unless the articles can be expanded to have considerably more content, and I disagree that a list is inappropriate for articles of this length - it's a bit of a crazy situation when the template seems to always take up more room than the article text. I'm rather doubtful about whether the articles can be expanded, so the "leave unmerged to encourage expansion" argument isn't very convincing. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is an improper VFD. Each of those articles should have thier own VFD page and the article at the top should be speedy deleted.  I am for keeping the articles on the starship classes but against the method in which this was done. -Husnock 04:32, 24 March 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.