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 redirect to Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic class starship[edit]

Olympic class starship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

this Star Trek starship class only ever appeared onscreen once, in one episode, as the USS Pasteur. The other examples of the class are from a book, which a compendium of every starship in Star Trek is listed (official Star Trek product). Onscreen the ships are only mentioned in passing, and the class of those ships are not mentioned. This belongs on Memory Alpha, and is already there, not Wikipedia. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this spaceship has no real in-universe significance, and there is no third-party coverage in reliable sources to substantiate real-world notability. --Anthem of joy (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment an editor has removed the deletion notice from the article. This seems a violation of deletion policy? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally, I would say yes, but since I didn't check here first, it doesn't apply. So I will be closing this as I have not !voted on the discussion.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 08:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the AFD, the 1 day discussion on the talk page does not override am AFD discussion here and there was a delete recommendation when this AFD was speedy kept. GB fan (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the in-universe significance of this ship class is absolutely irrelevant to Wikipedia. And this class is covered in the sources given in the article, although I am unsure how these sources would be classified according to WP:THIRDPARTY#How to meet the requirement. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per comments given at WP:RSN#Do the sources in an article count as third-party sources?. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - into a broader article on the topic of "Star Trek starship classes" (perhaps List of starships appearing in Star Trek, by class). The fact that the creators of Star Trek invented many different types of starships, and invented "classes" for them is definitely noteworthy ... and wp:notable enough to justify a broad focus article outlining what the different classes were and giving information about them (both "in universe" facts and production/modeling facts) ... but the majority of the individual classes, as separate topics, are not notable enough for stand alone articles. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or as a last resort Merge - Im just going to copy and paste what i wrote last time:

"This article has been here since 2004 without any major problem until now. I see nothing wrong with this article as it is. Yes, its at Memory Alpha...but that doesnt mean we shouldnt have it here. I disagree with it being non-notable, it played a large part in the FINAL episode of an entire series. That enough makes it notable in my personal opinion."
However, as someone seems SO intent on deleting it, i ask at the very least that it is merged with Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek, with much of the detail that it currently contains. Bailo26 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Do we have a list of Star Trek ships somewhere on Wikipedia? We have a list of Transformers ships, where we merged all those articles. Trek is at least as notable as Transformers, so we need a list for them. Mathewignash (talk) 01:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If, as it appears, there are 22 (!) claases of starship in the Star Trek continuity, and 21 of them are (so far) uncontroversially notable, no useful purpose is served by treating the 22nd differently. From WP:OSE: In categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; also most of those others have more than one onscreen appearance as more than one ship. The ones that only appear as one ship onscreen, or only have one onscreen appearance should also be deleted. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep. This is a reasonable search term and there should be a mention of this design at List of starship classes in Star Trek at the very least. The notability for a stand alone article is questionable (i.e. I know that I can find sources but they would be of dubious independence) but deletion is not the solution. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lists three different non-vanity published RS'es. Unless Pocket Books and Simon and Schuster are owned by Paramount Television, they're independent sources. Just because producers of the show wrote the books doesn't make them not independent RS'es. The fact that there's a separate editorial oversight and decision making process ("Will this sell enough to make us a profit?") unrelated to the promotion of the TV show is what counts for independence. Having said that, there's no reason an editorial merge proposal would be inappropriate--it does appear that of the Star Trek ships this one is likely the least notable... but still: this is Star Trek, and published sources abound for everything. Jclemens (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Simon and Schuster owns Pocket Books, *and* they are the license holder for Star Trek books. So, they are *not* independent sources. Pocket Books is the publisher of all those books you seen in the book store in the Science Fiction shelves for Star Trek novels. Clearly S&S is a primary source for Star Trek, being a licensee of official products. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, holding a license does not make a publisher editorially dependent on anyone else. They decide what they publish, they decide how they're going to try to make money off of it. That's a far cry from the production company's own publications. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • They publish original material, Star Trek novels, therefore, they are a primary source for Star Trek (just as the comics companies are primary sources for Star Trek, since they publish officially sanctioned original stories). The Star Trek Enclopedias etc are the production company's books published by S&S. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All three books were published under Paramount's direction and Paramount still regains the copyrights, so they are not independent source. The books were written by Paramount's staff and Simon and Schuster had no editorial control over them. All Simon and Schuster did was print and distribute the books under license. "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. The authors of the books, Paramount, and Simon and Schuster are all affiliated with Star Trek, therefore they cannot establish notability of fictional elements within Star Trek. —Farix (t | c) 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is well referenced, and the topic shows notability. It is also needed to complete the set. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "complete the set"? Do you mean we should write an article on each and every Star Trek starship class, and then to every starship class in fiction? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepWe could replace every reference to something about StarTrek in Wikipedia with a link to an appropriate page at Memory Alpha, but that would just be petty of us. Notable, sourced, and as relevant as any StarTrekian article could be. I do wish they'd look at and write about other science fiction, but at least they are reading and writing. htom (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Comment' Seeing all the keep !votes here makes me wonder if this AFD was a complete waste of time and WP resources.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OP has a right to have their arguments for deletion to be heard. Verifying the rough consensus found on the article's talk page by the wider community at AFD is never a waste of time or resources. GB fan (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Sorry, but are any of the sources in this article non-primary? If this article has enough non-primary sources to keep, I want all my deleted Transformers articles back. Mathewignash (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd call them secondary since they aren't actual cites to the TV show itself which would be the primary source material. They are, however, all or at least mostly to the official secondary materials and thus not really independent. I don't have an informed opinion of the Transformers articles but note that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid because similarly situated articles are not necessarily identically situated. On the other hand, certain very popular fandoms do sometimes seem to get a pass do to lots of fans voting keep at AfD. There isn't much that can be done about it, but if we do want to equalize treatment of say Star Trek and Transformers (an another pair of similarly situated areas) I'd "vote" to equalize up rather than down. We need better sources than DVD screen captures and action figure packaging but where we can get them we can and probably should have articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, well recently we had a rash of anti-Transformers deletion nominations where several editors insisted that guide books and the like were primary, so they deleted article after article. I guess they wanted to see a Transformers guest host on Johnny Carson or something to consider him notable. It was rather overboard on the proof requirements. An article cited like this Trek one would have been deleted QUICKLY. Mathewignash (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is nothing to imply significant coverage from any reliable secondary source. Mentions in dedicated Star Trek compendiums are not this. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I remember the starship Pasteur, commanded by Captain Beverly Picard the alternate universe created by Q. It was a notable episode for her.14:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Delete The subject has not received significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to pass WP:NOTE. The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion, The Star Trek Encyclopedia, and Star Trek Chronology are officially licensed books and therefore primary sources. In fact, the copyright page of all three books state that the copyright is owned by Paramount Pictures. Secondly, mentions of the Olympic class are very brief. The other references also doesn't provide any significant coverage and most of them are likewise owned by Paramount Pictures. —Farix (t | c) 18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I don't think any one exsept Paramount have the coppy wright, so it (like the rest) will have littel other sources. Sir Patrick Moore can't help either since his telliscope is too weak!82.14.52.155 (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no coverage in reliable sources independent on the subject (which precisely excludes any work affiliated in any way with the Star Trek franchise), so the subject is not notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' merchandise sold by licensed business partners does not WP:verify notability because business partners are not independent under the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2011 (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.