563:, 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.
356:). 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
793:, 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.
431:"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."
771:. 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
580:
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
865:
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
628:
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
775:
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
206:
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
702:
We could replace every reference to something about StarTrek in
Knowledge (XXG) 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
776:
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.
614:, 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.
595:
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.
466:
Comment - Do we have a list of Star Trek ships somewhere on
Knowledge (XXG)? 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.
175:
484:. 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
737:
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.
511:; 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.
310:
of this ship class is absolutely irrelevant to
Knowledge (XXG). And this class is covered in the sources given in the article, although I am unsure how these sources would be classified according to
629:
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
401:
534:
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.
378:
754:
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.
169:
490:
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.
136:
284:
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.
225:- this spaceship has no real in-universe significance, and there is no third-party coverage in reliable sources to substantiate real-world notability. --
109:
104:
113:
683:"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?
96:
814:- There is nothing to imply significant coverage from any reliable secondary source. Mentions in dedicated Star Trek compendiums are not this. ▫
684:
615:
582:
512:
243:
208:
72:
353:
894:
434:
54:
190:
17:
843:, commanded by Captain Beverly Picard the alternate universe created by Q. It was a notable episode for her.14:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
157:
23:
496:
877:
648:
940:
531:
772:
508:
151:
971:
43:
956:
931:
902:
881:
831:
802:
785:
763:
747:
732:
712:
692:
675:
652:
623:
605:
590:
572:
543:
520:
500:
476:
460:
416:
393:
369:
344:
323:
293:
276:
251:
234:
216:
78:
889:
I don't think any one exsept
Paramount have the coppy wright, so it (like the rest) will have littel other sources.
492:
340:
319:
147:
927:
688:
671:
619:
586:
516:
261:
247:
212:
207:
class of those ships are not mentioned. This belongs on Memory Alpha, and is already there, not Knowledge (XXG).
100:
970:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
67:
42:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
197:
952:
898:
720:
Seeing all the keep !votes here makes me wonder if this AFD was a complete waste of time and WP resources.
230:
92:
84:
311:
798:
759:
472:
948:
666:
the article is well referenced, and the topic shows notability. It is also needed to complete the set.
336:
315:
242:
an editor has removed the deletion notice from the article. This seems a violation of deletion policy?
923:
781:
708:
667:
560:
539:
163:
433:
However, as someone seems SO intent on deleting it, i ask at the very least that it is merged with
183:
62:
59:
873:
816:
728:
644:
601:
568:
556:
365:
272:
226:
890:
794:
755:
468:
412:
389:
36:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
919:
850:
264:
first, it doesn't apply. So I will be closing this as I have not !voted on the discussion.
743:
289:
944:
911:
849:
The subject has not received significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to pass
530:
or Keep. This is a reasonable search term and there should be a mention of this design at
485:
332:
777:
704:
535:
868:
721:
639:
597:
564:
361:
265:
552:
438:
408:
385:
130:
739:
285:
352:- into a broader article on the topic of "Star Trek starship classes" (perhaps
633:, therefore they cannot establish notability of fictional elements within
914:(which precisely excludes any work affiliated in any way with the
333:
WP:RSN#Do the sources in an article count as third-party sources?
24:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Articles for deletion/Olympic class starship
964:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
551:
lists three different non-vanity published RS'es. Unless
427:- Im just going to copy and paste what i wrote last time:
943:
because business partners are not independent under the
939:
merchandise sold by licensed business partners does not
402:
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
126:
122:
118:
437:, with much of the detail that it currently contains.
182:
703:
fiction, but at least they are reading and writing.
379:
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions
260:
Normally, I would say yes, but since I didn't check
893:
can't help either since his telliscope is too weak!
196:
581:Star Trek, being a licensee of official products.
354:List of starships appearing in Star Trek, by class
46:). No further edits should be made to this page.
974:). No further edits should be made to this page.
866:them are likewise owned by Paramount Pictures. —
435:Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek
55:Starfleet ship registry and classes in Star Trek
8:
400:Note: This debate has been included in the
377:Note: This debate has been included in the
912:reliable sources independent on the subject
399:
376:
312:WP:THIRDPARTY#How to meet the requirement
855:Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion
532:List of starship classes in Star Trek
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
918:franchise), so the subject is not
31:
610:They publish original material,
425:Keep or as a last resort Merge
1:
945:general notability guideline
991:
859:The Star Trek Encyclopedia
360:for stand alone articles.
967:Please do not modify it.
957:13:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
932:21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
903:15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
882:18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
839:I remember the starship
832:11:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
803:10:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
786:05:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
764:23:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
748:23:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
733:22:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
713:21:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
693:04:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
676:11:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
653:12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
624:05:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
606:05:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
591:04:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
573:05:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
544:04:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
521:04:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
501:04:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
477:01:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
461:23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
417:17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
394:17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
370:13:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
345:12:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
331:- per comments given at
324:11:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
308:in-universe significance
294:11:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
277:08:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
252:07:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
235:07:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
217:06:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
79:03:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
39:Please do not modify it.
93:Olympic class starship
85:Olympic class starship
493:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
941:WP:verify notability
863:Star Trek Chronology
561:Paramount Television
773:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
509:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
557:Simon and Schuster
51:The result was
910:: no coverage in
891:Sir Patrick Moore
419:
405:
396:
382:
296:
22:(Redirected from
982:
969:
828:
825:
822:
819:
726:
612:Star Trek novels
457:
454:
451:
448:
445:
442:
406:
383:
337:Toshio Yamaguchi
316:Toshio Yamaguchi
283:
270:
201:
200:
186:
134:
116:
75:
70:
65:
41:
27:
990:
989:
985:
984:
983:
981:
980:
979:
978:
972:deletion review
965:
924:Folken de Fanel
826:
823:
820:
817:
722:
685:184.144.163.181
668:Graeme Bartlett
616:184.144.163.181
583:184.144.163.181
513:184.144.163.181
455:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
266:
244:184.144.163.181
209:184.144.163.181
143:
107:
91:
88:
73:
68:
63:
44:deletion review
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
988:
986:
977:
976:
960:
959:
934:
905:
884:
844:
834:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
752:
751:
750:
715:
697:
696:
695:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
626:
546:
525:
524:
523:
479:
432:
429:
428:
421:
420:
397:
373:
372:
347:
326:
300:
299:
298:
297:
280:
279:
255:
254:
237:
204:
203:
140:
87:
82:
49:
48:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
987:
975:
973:
968:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
949:Shooterwalker
946:
942:
938:
935:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
906:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
885:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
845:
842:
838:
835:
833:
830:
829:
813:
810:
804:
800:
796:
792:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
774:
770:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
736:
735:
734:
730:
727:
725:
719:
716:
714:
710:
706:
701:
698:
694:
690:
686:
682:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
665:
662:
654:
650:
646:
642:
641:
636:
632:
627:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
579:
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
562:
559:are owned by
558:
554:
550:
547:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
491:
487:
483:
480:
478:
474:
470:
465:
464:
463:
462:
459:
458:
436:
426:
423:
422:
418:
414:
410:
403:
398:
395:
391:
387:
380:
375:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
348:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
302:
301:
295:
291:
287:
282:
281:
278:
274:
271:
269:
263:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
249:
245:
241:
238:
236:
232:
228:
227:Anthem of joy
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
199:
195:
192:
189:
185:
181:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
149:
146:
145:Find sources:
141:
138:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
86:
83:
81:
80:
76:
71:
66:
61:
57:
56:
47:
45:
40:
34:
33:
25:
19:
966:
963:
936:
915:
907:
895:82.14.52.155
886:
867:
862:
858:
854:
846:
840:
836:
815:
811:
795:Mathewignash
790:
768:
756:Mathewignash
723:
717:
699:
680:
663:
638:
634:
630:
611:
577:
553:Pocket Books
548:
527:
505:
489:
481:
469:Mathewignash
439:
430:
424:
357:
349:
328:
307:
303:
267:
239:
222:
205:
193:
187:
179:
172:
166:
160:
154:
144:
53:redirect to
52:
50:
38:
35:
170:free images
778:Eluchil404
724:ArcAngel
536:Eluchil404
268:ArcAngel
916:Star Trek
837:Weak keep
718:"Comment'
635:Star Trek
631:Star Trek
409:• Gene93k
386:• Gene93k
598:Jclemens
565:Jclemens
362:Blueboar
137:View log
937:Delete'
920:notable
851:WP:NOTE
841:Pasteur
791:Comment
769:Comment
681:Comment
578:Comment
506:Comment
304:Comment
240:Comment
176:WP refs
164:scholar
110:protect
105:history
60:King of
908:Delete
861:, and
853:. The
847:Delete
818:Johnny
812:Delete
740:GB fan
729:(talk)
486:WP:OSE
358:enough
329:Delete
286:GB fan
273:(talk)
223:Delete
148:Google
114:delete
869:Farix
640:Farix
528:Merge
350:Merge
191:JSTOR
152:books
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
953:talk
928:talk
899:talk
887:Note
799:talk
782:talk
760:talk
744:talk
709:talk
705:htom
700:Keep
689:talk
672:talk
664:Keep
620:talk
602:talk
587:talk
569:talk
555:and
549:Keep
540:talk
517:talk
497:talk
482:Keep
473:talk
413:talk
390:talk
366:talk
341:talk
320:talk
306:the
290:talk
262:here
248:talk
231:talk
213:talk
184:FENS
158:news
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
824:Nin
637:. —
198:TWL
135:– (
955:)
947:.
930:)
901:)
880:)
876:|
857:,
827:ja
821:Mr
801:)
784:)
762:)
746:)
731:)
711:)
691:)
674:)
651:)
647:|
622:)
604:)
589:)
571:)
542:)
519:)
499:)
488::
475:)
456:26
415:)
407:—
404:.
392:)
384:—
381:.
368:)
343:)
335:.
322:)
314:.
292:)
275:)
250:)
233:)
215:)
178:)
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
77:♠
58:.
951:(
926:(
922:.
897:(
878:c
874:t
872:(
797:(
780:(
758:(
742:(
707:(
687:(
670:(
649:c
645:t
643:(
618:(
600:(
585:(
567:(
538:(
515:(
495:(
471:(
453:o
450:l
447:i
444:a
441:B
411:(
388:(
364:(
339:(
318:(
288:(
246:(
229:(
211:(
202:)
194:·
188:·
180:·
173:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
150:(
142:(
139:)
133:)
95:(
74:♣
69:♦
64:♥
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.