Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lost ships of Starfleet

List of lost ships of Starfleet

Over a year since its last AFD, no improvement, still not notable list cruft. All these ships are noted in the episodes they come from and in the individual articles on ship types and designs, so this is pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant. This is not Memory Alpha. -- Redfarmer (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Redfarmer Pharmboy (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a useful way of correlating the multiple articles according to a relevant criterion.DGG (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing more then a plot summary. Ridernyc (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep material of highly notable subject which goes across other articles. Agree needs sources tohugh cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG above. Also, length of time without improvement isn't a valid deletion reason. Rray (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arguments for keeping it would better justify a category than a page: nothing about this page seems compelling. RJC ^Talk 07:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, and as Redfarmer pointed out, this should be left to Memory Alpha. Little encyclopedic value. Alloranleon (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, otherwise Transwiki to Memory Alpha or Beta. Nom states "No improvement" since this version? That is really not fair - editors have done a lot of deletion and a lot of referencing as well as tabulating. "Pure duplication" - the same could be said about any List or Category; but it is a collation of info from another specific point of view, and an alternative way to navigate the info in the encyclopedia. Multiple ways to navigate is one of the advantages of a Wiki over a paper encyclopedia; don't throw it away. As for notability, the concept of lost ships in Star Trek is certainly sufficiently notable, and the list provides additional context. Having satisfied that, primary sources are sufficient. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely in-universe content, no redeeming realworld critical analysis or commentary <eleland/talkedits> 20:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well referenced and making it a "category" would lose information. MarsRover (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't need a list of 'fictional starships' in the Star Trek! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An seemingly arbitrary selection of starships belonging to a fictional universe, with no evidence of notability of topic. Wholly primarily sourced. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - re. Fayenatic's comment: I see no assertion or citation for "the concept of lost ships" being notable. Even if that were the case, the article says nothing about the "concept," its development, etc. It's just a list of plot points. --EEMIV (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting enough, but not right for an article. Lawrence Cohen 23:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and also because the first AfD is not linked to above as is the usual way of doing these. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unnotable. Really.--Kamikaze (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki This belongs on Memory Alpha, it also borders on Original Research. Ferdia O'Brien ^(T)/_(C) 14:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Still only primary sources and it's doubtful secondary sources exist to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]