Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek planet classifications

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 merge to Class M planet. Merge appropriate info to Class M planet. Class M is repeatedly mentioned and integral to the Star Trek series, given that 90% if all planetside action takes place there, and there are at least enough scant mentions to meet bare requirements of the GNG. Content like the creation/development of the planet classification can still be covered in the article. It should also be noted that while Okuda could be considered a secondary source in some respects, he is not when he is writing an officially sanctioned Star Trek encyclopedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek planet classifications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Topic receives trivial, passing references within the franchise; no indication or claim of notability in the real world. Has a single in-universe reference; no third-party, real-world coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete Any salvageable (ie sourced) information should be merged with Class M planet, which is notable in ST canon. §FreeRangeFrog 20:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Acceptable spinout from main article that aids in understanding the setting. Edward321 (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And with regards to a lack of reliable sources evidencing notability as concerned in the nomination? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion argument is void now. I added 10 footnotes and more references, something that editors who wanted to delete this article were unwilling to do. I suspect these additions will not satisfy some editors here (who contributed nothing to the article), but it is enough for the average person to say it should be kept. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely in-universe with no real prospect of relating this to the real world, with no Reliable Sources. - fchd (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare Emilia_(Othello) for relevance to the "real world". --ScottAlanHill (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article provides no evidence thereof. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An important part of the series, and when it won't fit on the main article page, you make a side page for it. Dream Focus (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, more like an incredibly trivial part of the series. - fchd (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnotable topic with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and fairly irrelevant even within the various series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Consists of primary sources and plot with no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (WP:N). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Class M planet (or better other way around). Spin out list are ok, but then having stubs for entries in the list is not.Yobmod (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage in real-world reliable 3rd party sources. Star Trek's classification schemes for its planets, sourced to a mention here a snippet of dialog there, a hint and a prayer... no, not encyclopedic any more than Stanford University course numbering or anything else of trivial note. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, This definitely falls under WP:N for any startrek fan. In addition, I don't believe the main article has room for this list, but it should instead be kept the way it is. As for sourcing, that could use some work, but this isn't a hoax.Smallman12q (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you misinterpret Wikipedia:Notability; in a nutshell: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This article has not. You said sourcing could use some work, and that's the rub. There's only one reliable source provided, and it's not independent of the subject. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suspect that you are misinterpreting the word "subject" here. Consider an abstruse mathematical topic like the abc conjecture; no reference outside of "the subject" of mathematics is ever going to talk about this conjecture, but it is still a notable article. My guess is that this rule is meant to prohibit vanity articles: it doesn't count if there are fifty references in support of Joe Schmoe's article if they were all written by Joe Schmoe. In this case Joe is the subject. --ScottAlanHill (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Major element of notable fiction. The GNG is at best guideline if nothing else will serve, and it does not restrict us from considering notable whatever seems appropriate for an article. I would merge separate classes of planets into here, but that's a separate discussion,and does not belong on AfD. DGG (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subsection of very notable fictional universe, that needs to exist as a separate file for (no pun intended) space reasons. Reasonable to assume that article on types of planets is relevant to a science fiction show that revolves (pun intended) on traveling to mysterious planets, and it's impressive that the scheme has been kept internally consistent over a 40-year run. As far as references, it already cites Star Trek Star Charts and lists without inline cites The Star Trek Encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such assumptions need to be substantiated by citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Where are they? Star Charts and Encyclopedia are in-universe that regurgitate plot; even they don't assert notability. --EEMIV (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A search on Google Books for "Star Trek" and "Class M" ( seems the most common one ) returns more sources,[1] such as The Physics of Star Trek, which appears to be independent. The Making of Star Trek even explains the concept of "Class M" planets as "a compromise with production costs". Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That doesn't really cover the subject directly in detail, as outlined by Wikipedia:Notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explodicle, instead of spending so much time rejecting other editors contributions, why not help us find references for this article? thus far, Squidfryerchef and DHowell have found several, and you have found none. We are here to build an encyclopedia, right? Ikip (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pocket Books and Michael Okuda, publisher and writer of The Star Trek Encyclopedia, while not strictly independent of the Star Trek franchise, were not directly involved in the creation of this classification system, which was created by Gene Roddenberry. Thus they are, for Wikipedia purposes, sufficiently "independent of the subject". Another source which documents planetary classes is Star Trek Voyager Companion, by Paul Ruditis, who is similarly independent of the classification scheme's creator. Thus the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", satisfying the general notability criteria. DHowell (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from the passing reference in The Makign of Star Trek, there's no evidence that any out-of-universe information exists to estabish notability. Totally does not merit its own article. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Star Trek - There don't seem to be any out-of-universe sources that address the subject directly in detail, as required by Wikipedia:Notability. Still, it's a plausible search term... Class M planet should get redirected too. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per DHowell, Squidfryerchef, DGG, Smallman12q, Colonel Warden. I encourage the editors who vote to delete to spend more time finding article sources, then deleting other editors contributions. Ikip (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing administrator This page has been updated extensively since the AfD tag was added, with 10 new footnotes, and more references.[2] Ikip (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to closing administrator: new footnotes and references do an impressive job of substantiating in-universe plot minutiae and details; many thanks to Ikip for illustrating that although there's plenty of in-universe material on this point of trivia, real-world sources and coverage or negligible/non-existent for this non-notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Star Trek is incredibly prevalent and well-written, discussed, etc. here's a few books that may help. In a less monumental fictional empire this would be cause for merge - rather than delete - but Star Trek is one of the largest fictional empires that exists and documenting this subject in reliable sources is perfectly feasible. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You've made a case for not deleting Star Trek -- what about Star Trek planet classifications? --EEMIV (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely you're not thinking I was calling for Star Trek not to be deleted? Regardless the largest fanclub, as much as fanclubs are generally not notable, in this case does seem notable and we even have some sourcing to bolster it. I'm sure more sources can be found but the goal is to see if it meets GNG which I think this does. -- Banjeboi 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fan club? I think you're confused this AfD discussion with the one for STARFLEET International. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : If there's an article for Class M planet, then there should be a summary of alternatives to that classification, though I feel that merging is also reasonable. Also note that notability for fiction has slightly different rules for independent sources than does general notability. – wfaulk (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:FICT is not an adopted guideline or policy; WP:GNG, however, is -- and that calls for significant, third-party coverage, which no one -- even after Ikip's expansion -- offers. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Where would I come to learn about the Star Trek planet classifications if not on Wikipedia? What ultimate use would we be doing if we delete this article? This article is a valid article pertaining to the dissemination of Star Trek knowledge to the world and should therefore not be deleted. WinterSpw (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2009 (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.