Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Star Trek Starships Second Nomination

Star Trek Starships
Wikibooks includes "textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals". This is none of those. Specifications of fictional starships for a television series is not what I expect to see at Wikibooks. This book was nominated for deletion before, but that was closed because the nomination was too soon after it was created and it was suggested that it would develop into something more. Well, it hasn't, since November 2006, other than adding more red links for more starships. This is covered by the Star Trek Wikia and this book is out of scope. – Adrignola talk 14:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete Couldn't be more off topic QU TalkQu 16:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Yeah, I know it has been awhile since I've weighed in on an article. This one has been on my watch list since it was first started, and I would like to suggest that using the rationale "it isn't a textbook" is inappropriate for Wikibooks as this project ought to include other things besides pure textbooks.... something I've argued about before.  I won't go into the politics of how that statement was written into "What is Wikibooks", as this particular sentence being quoted was and still ought to be controversial. All this said, this book still should be deleted mainly because it is original research where there really isn't anything authoritative that can be used for the figures and descriptions of these fictional vehicles.  The information on these pages are made up completely, or copying information from books that also made them up.  Either it is a copyvio or original research, neither of which seems to be a good reason to keep.   That Memory Alpha also exists is irrelevant, and I have a hard time seeing these pages being put into even Memory Alpha as it doesn't fit that site's criteria for inclusion as the information presented here doesn't come from "canonical" sources (movies, TV shows, books, etc.).  If it would be rejected on Memory Alpha, I think it should be pretty clear that it could be rejected here.  --Rob Horning (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I recognize that some might consider this shaky ground, as my pet project, Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, could similarly be called a cataloging of a fictional universe... but we are trying to do at least some uncovering of the literary techniques underlying the series' success, and while a similar work about Star Trek could be done, and quite probably has elsewhere, a simple cataloging of starships is not such a work, and adds little to the understanding of the series' qualities. Chazz (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Written from an "in-universe" perspective, which ignores reality and isn't particularly educational or useful in a literary setting. Verifiability may also be a problem which would make this work original research as well. --dark lama  00:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete per above. Kayau 14:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete on Rob and Chazz's arguments.Duplode (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete It breaks my heart as a die hard trekkie to say so, but I also think it should be deleted from this project. Just the wrong wiki for this topic. Thenub314 (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Clearly not within scope. --Jomegat (talk) 12:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)