Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek ships

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 to delete. W.marsh 18:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek ships

The starships listed here are not notable. The vast majority of them never even once appeared on screen, they were either mentioned in a single throw away line of dialogue or appeared for a couple of seconds on a display screen on the Enterprise bridge or somewhere similar. Wikipedia is not the place for pages devoted to extreme trivia. AlistairMcMillan 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

   * List of Starfleet ship classes
   * Lost Ships of Starfleet

Update I think people are missing the point here. I didn't nominate because of the lack of sources. The problem is notability.

Take as an example the first starship mentioned on "List of Star Trek ships", the USS Adelphi. The only time the Adelphi appeared in Star Trek was in dialogue from the episode Tin man. Specifically this dialogue... GEORDI: "I've heard something about Ghorusda. Weren't about forty people killed --" RIKER: "Forty-seven, including the captain of the Adelphi -- and two friends from my class at the Academy." And that is that. Never appeared on screen, never mentioned again in dialogue.

How about the second starship mentioned on "List of Star Trek ships", the USS Ahwahnee. It appeared briefly (seconds) as an item on a list of starships on a display screen in the episode Redemption, Part 2 and appeared briefly (seconds again) as a wreck in the background of a battle ground in The Best of Both Worlds. Never once mentioned in dialogue.

The various starships Enterprise are notable, the Reliant, Defiant and Excelsior, etc play significant parts in various movies/episodes. The ships listed on these pages do not. Even among Star Trek fans, ships like the Adelphi and Ahwahnee are extreme examples of trivia... is that what Wikipedia is for now?

To those who say we should have lists of ships, we have articles on the notable ones (USS Defiant, USS Reliant (Star Trek), USS Excelsior (Star Trek), etc) and categories to collect them for easy reference Category:Federation Starships. AlistairMcMillan 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict)Strong Delete. Most of this info that is 'right' must have been copvio'd out of the Star Trek encyclopaedia, and the overwhelming majority is non-verifiable - e.g., the 'USS Interceptor' allegedly from FC. Never mentioned in dialogue, no Nebula class ships seen close enough to make out a name, far less an NCC. Much as I'd love to burn this article and its ilk, delete is the best we can do. Delete them all as the non-notable copyvio'd fancruft they are. --Mnem e son 22:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC) After reading other comments, I apologise for confusing content and context. Most of what is in the articles needs to be deleted, but the Lists themselves are probably valid. However, if kept, the list of ship classes should list the ship classes, not the ships by class, and lost ships of Starfleet would only serve redundant to Ships of Starfleet (put an 'x' or something by the destroyed ones in the Ships list and then Lost ships is totally useless). Keep List of Starfleet Ships and List of Starfleet ship classes, delete Lost Ships of Starfleet. --Mnem e son 10:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is sci-fi cruft that is just not needed. Giant onehead 22:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. There have been many ships in Star Trek and the idea of creating a list of them is perfectly encyclopedic. However, it should be confined only to ships that actually appeared on the show, so much of this article's content should be removed. But the article's basic concept is valid and keepable. wikipediatrix 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you may have problems with the content, the concept itself is not without merit. FrozenPurpleCube 01:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The history shows a variety of editors, which demonstrates that this topic is of use to some people. If it's copyvio, it should be rewritten. Ultra-Loser ^{Talk | BT sites} 02:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lost Ships of Starfleet, which is more or less redundant to the other lists. Weak keep and cleanup the other two lists. These badly need sourcing, at least give the episode they were in or something. I agree with Wikipediatrix that only ships that actually appeared in an episode should be listed. In addition, List of Starfleet ship classes seems misnamed to me, as it really sorts ships by class instead of listing classes. BryanG^(talk) 04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So "List of Starfleet ship classes" should be reverted back to something like this then? AlistairMcMillan 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, yes. --EEMeltonIV 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep the same name, then yes, that content would be better. Several of the more minor classes that currently have a seperate article could be merged in then. Otherwise, if you want to keep the sorting by class, then I'd probably just rename it. BryanG^(talk) 20:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of Starfleet ship classes or perhaps rename ("List of Starfleet ships"? organized by ship class). Sources are easily added; one just needs to find which episode it was in/talked about. Keep List of Star Trek ships and the section for Starfleet ships can be "see main article..". Delete Lost Ships of Starfleet and redirect if there are many links to it. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~If it is so easy, then perhaps you wouldn't mind starting the effort now. I added a bunch of sources myself ages ago and asked other editors to help out... wanna guess what happened?~~ Never mind. AlistairMcMillan 14:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why, then, would you nominate for deletion an article that you yourself admit you've worked on and added sources to? We don't delete articles just for being incomplete or in need of cleanup, otherwise a third of Wikipedia would have to be jettisoned. wikipediatrix 14:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to improve some of the Star Trek articles on Wikipedia. This started out as one article that I was never happy with. Now, instead of improving, the article has grown even worse and spawned... Please look at the edit histories of these articles, there is a constant effort needed to keep out fan cruft. People adding the starships they have invented for their own fan clubs and fan fiction... The articles are a mess and unless someone is going to dedicate a large portion of their time to tidying and maintaining them they aren't going to improve. AlistairMcMillan 14:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you're describing is a problem with the content other editors have added, and that is NOT a criteria for deletion. In the time you've spent arguing on this AfD, you could have been WP:BOLD and just removed all the bogus starships yourself. wikipediatrix 15:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really why didn't I think of that. Silly me. AlistairMcMillan 15:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Ditto Fang Aili. --EEMeltonIV 14:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two, Delete/Redirect one, per Fang Aili. Accurizer 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While they may not be needed for the vast majority of casual reads of wikipedia, I know from my own Trek gutter days [who am I kiddin'; I'm still in those 'gutter days'] that these lists do interest a great deal of people. In the end, as long as the qualification for making the list (onscreen text, mention or appearance) is consistent for all listed ships, then it holds some value for some citizens of Wikipedia; afterall, its a list of all known ships in Starfleet, and how do you cut ships that weren't used as characters and achieve that goal? Note: I have not been a contributer to the list, did not know it existed until exploring today's Tip of the Day (topic lists) nor was I led here as a meatpuppet, but I have definitely appreciated having this list when compiled elsewhere. LeyteWolfer 03:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how can a bunch of fictional items that never appeared but are perhaps used in a throw-away line: "Oh, Scotty, remember when we beamed aboard the USS Mustang Ranch?" We might as well have lists like Names dropped on the Tonight Show, French words used by Rush Limbaugh, Places Scotty has beamed me up from and the like...It's a pity we spend lots of time deleting things that are or were and will no doubt end up keeping things that never were and are barely mentioned in the fictional universe in which they purport to have been. Carlossuarez46 03:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Another one that ought to go is Starfleet conjectural ranks and insignia which the article in the first sentence states: "Conjectural ranks of Star Trek are Starfleet ranks and insignia which have never appeared in a live action Star Trek production" hmmm....If I conjecture that Cap. Kirk got promoted to praetorian praefect 7th class, does that get mentioned? Carlossuarez46 04:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Star Trek ships and delete Lost Ships of Starfleet. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been using this list for quite some time as a resource for ship names in 4x-style video games such as Space Empires IV. Sure, it's SUPER nerdy, but the fact that at least one person finds it very very useful shouldn't be overlooked. Especially if that person is me. I probably visit this article once every couple of days. Apoxy 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 04:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge. The list is useful for fans (yeah, I know that's not a wiki priority), and is a good trivia reference. I think that it should be kept, or merged with another trek related page or topic.

perfectblue 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condense mercilessly. I agree with the sentiment at the top of this list. Can't a link be provided to the startrek.com web site, which has a database of ships?

--Jonsberndt 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well not be an encyclopedia at all, then, since we can always just link to websites with information, right? wikipediatrix 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonsberndt's 4th edit. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ensure data retention then delete. The page for most of the classes of Federation ship includes a list of the known ships of that class, along with references to the episodes in which they were mentioned. It would seem to me to be a good compromise that we ensure that the current data is replicated on the "ship class" pages, then the list of classes removed and replaced with a Category. This would be exactly as easy/difficult to navigate as now for a fan interested in this as a resource, but would remove the duplicate data, and conform more to Wikipedia standards. IRSWalker 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's 7th edit. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How are these Star Trek articles any different than List of Star Wars capital ships, List of Star Wars starfighters, List of Star Wars air vehicles, List of minor Star Wars vehicles, List of miscellaneous ships in Battlestar Galactica, List of fictional spaceships, List of fictional spaceborne heavy cruisers, List of Culture ships, and List of ships in the Matrix series, just to name a few? (Not to mention List of vehicles in The Simpsons). wikipediatrix 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.