Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vulcan starships


 * 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   no consensus. ff m  00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vulcan starships

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

No citations to multiple third-party reliable sources to establish notability. All but one citation is for plot, and is cited only to primary sources. Single "real-world" citation is to an unreliable source and is a one-line bit of trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I seconded the prod, which was contested. I'm not sure this is very controversial.  They might have some coverage in that book by the Okuda's but I doubt it since the first real mention of those ships (well, not really a mention) was in First Contact.  Cites primary sources and fansites.  Consists entirely of plot repetition. Protonk (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Acceptable combination article for major setting elements of a very major series. It is appropriate to bring this material together. The primary sourcing is enough for this sort of material. DGG (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a note, these were relatively minor elements of one series in the Star Trek universe (the final and probably least significant series). For the rest of the Star Trek episodes and movies, first contact with the Vulcans was something in the distant past and their ships were rarely (if ever) mentioned in canon fiction.  They were (as the article notes) never presented on screen until the 8th movie (Star Trek: First Contact).  They were not there, nor were they in Star Trek: Enterprise, settings.  They were ships shown on screen in various battles or situations.  This is in contrast to a few Romulan starships which played host to episodes including half of Balance of Terror.  I'm not suggesting that use as settings is some sort of shadow critereon by which these episodes should be judged, but if you are planning to do so, I figured you should be informed as to the significance of these ships within the fictional universe. Protonk (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is almost wholly constitutive of plot, with no evidence of having received any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 20:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N, in that there does not seem to be any mention of these ships in independent sources. I always provide some leeway for lists ... if someone could even manage to demonstrate that anyone outside of the universe had even made a writeup that went into any detail at all about Vulcan ships, I'd switch to keep.Kww (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Largely for the reason DGG identified.  Trek is a work of fiction.  Therefore, the only truly reliable sources for "facts" in that fictional universe will be the books, movies, shows, and licensed publications themselves.  The Vulcans are a major group in the Trek universe, and the information in the article appears to be pulled together from more than just one episode/book.  (Full disclosure, I haven't watched a Trek-type program in over 10 years.) Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the case at all. Let's take the X Files, for example.  the x files is a work of fiction, but there have been several books written about episodes, characters and themes.  For example, "Deny All Knowledge": Reading the X Files, is written by people independent from Fox and covers (among other things) several elements of the X Files quite deeply.  The points people are making about WP:PLOT is that we have fairly well established policy that says we shouldn't be in the business of just recapitulating plot details.  One of the ways to ensure we don't do that is to limit our coverage of subjects to those which have already been covered by independent sources.  There is some dispute as to how fair this is for fictional subject, but it is not impossible, by any stretch. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. But I think you have to agree that the ultimate source of information repeated in those X-Files books has to be the show itself.  I don't think you can deny that the books are a reliable, verifiable source for the information.  Your argument is instead that since no book on Star Trek has been cited, that the information isn't sufficiently important to be included here.  That's an entirely different argument and not one that I think is especially valid in this specific context.  Further, given the overall notability of Star Trek and its "universe" in general, the thousands of scholarly articles written on the topic, much less role playing guides and what not, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it is likely that someone can find a third-party reference for this stuff if they go looking.  It just isn't going to be me.  Now if someone were to suggest that the article be merged in Vulcans or some article on Star Trek spaceships in general, that would be a different story. Crypticfirefly (talk) 15:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. The ultimate source for the information is the fiction writers.  From the standpoint of verifiability, that is helpful.  In this case we aren't talking about whether or not the information can be verified but whether or not wikipedia should have an article on the subject.  In that case, like it or lump it, our current consensus is that secondary sources determine the answer to that question.  There is by no means overwhelming consensus for that result, because it gives the unpleasant outcome of removing large numbers of fictional articles and keeping others for reasons which are arbitrary within the fictional world.  In other words, it doesn't let us build a comprehensive fiction reference.  It only allows us to cover sub-elements which have received attention from independent sources.  Those may be minor or major within the fictional world and they may be the result of causes outside the fictional world.  E.G. there are far more possible references for the TOS communicators than most ships, planets or space stations in the Star Trek universe because the "clamshell" cellular phone was basically based on them.  I have been trying (along with DGG) to figure out a new guideline for inclusion of fictional subjects but to be honest I don't have any good answers to this problem.  In the mean time, I hope you will weigh in on what I see as a first step toward being able to write such a guideline, an RFC about notability guidelines themselves: Wikipedia talk:Notability/RFC:compromise. Protonk (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Upmerge along with the other crufty ship list articles in the nav template or delete because of WP:N, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOT, WP:SYNTH etc. It's only fair to apply policies and guidelines to highly populuar fiction franchises as well, but I can see how a combined ST Starship list would still be beneficial to wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 16:30, 20 September 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.