Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Trek Starfleet 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 delete. If someone wants to transwiki this please let me know. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek Starfleet starships

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an extremely long list of in-universe minutia with no real world information that I can see. This is a list for fans, by fans that does not help the general reader. Any article linking here is simply dumping the readers into a mass list with very little utility. There exists Spacecraft in Star Trek, which can hold the small list of actual bluelink articles. I don't think there is any justification to go into such depth. TTN (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:LISTN Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that recognized purpose is? TTN (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

informational. Lightburst (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An indiscriminate collection of original research and fancruft. All references are Wikipedia links linking to episode plots. Majority of starship links redirect back to this article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do we have a list of every single ship in Starfleet? The vast majority of these ships only appeared in a handful of episodes. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 22:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research; non-notable trivia; not a useful navigation aid. Mostly unreferenced or referenced only to primary sources. (A list of notable starships would be appropriate.) Pburka (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such lists are not encyclopedic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning towards keep On policy/guideline grounds, fictional starship lists typically get deleted because they are non-notable as a group (WP:LISTN). But Spacecraft in Star Trek already establishes notability of the group, and this list could now be argued to be a legitimate WP:SPINOUT: Nobody would object to have a complete list of starships within a well sourced spacecraft article, if it wasn't for Star Trek having so many and needing more space. On the other hand, I realize that a separate plot-only list could be construed as fancruft, so make of that what you will. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-canonical fancruft. Does it get any lower than that? As the nominator has noted, there's already Spacecraft in Star Trek. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Heavy fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. yes, some of this is obscure, but it is canonical, as all of these did appear on screen. we have articles for every episode of Friends, every video game, every comic book, plus articles for Japanese anime, old records from the 1970s. etc etc. so why not this data as well? --Sm8900 (talk) 03:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article explicitly states that much of it is based on non-canonical sources. Also, we don't have articles on every video game and comic book, and besides WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mix of ships seen on screen (film and television) and ships named in tie-in fiction, comics, video games, etc. No criteria explaining which named ships are included and why. Rdzogschen (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While Wikipedia has such stupid policies like deleting useful information, I will not contribute ANY MORE MONEY. Mass storage is now extremely cheap, so there is no excuse for deleting useful information. I blast the argument “Such lists are not encyclopedic” into the water, as many entries in various encyclopaedia can be considered to be lists/contain lists.

As for the argument that “This is a list for fans, by fans that does not help the general reader”, that could be used for any article in any specialised subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.95.183 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2019 (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.