Deletion of Star Trek planet classifications

Comment: This definitely falls under  for any startrek fan. In addition, I don't believe the main article has room for this list, but it should instead be kept the way it is. As for sourcing, that could use some work, but this isn't a hoax
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: Pocket Books and Michael Okuda, publisher and writer of ''The Star Trek Encyclopedia'', while not strictly independent of the ''Star Trek'' franchise, were not directly involved in the creation of this classification system, which was created by Gene Roddenberry. Thus they are, for Wikipedia purposes, sufficiently "independent of the subject". Another source which documents planetary classes is ''Star Trek Voyager Companion'', by Paul Ruditis, who is similarly independent of the classification scheme's creator. Thus the subject has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", satisfying the |general notability criteria
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: If there's an article for Class M planet, then there should be a summary of alternatives to that classification, though I feel that merging is also reasonable.  Also note that Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)|notability for fiction has slightly different rules for independent sources than does |general notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)