Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G)

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 of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G)

This page is about a theoretical starship in a fictional universe. It is clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 14:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This ship has more notability than say the F, the H or the I as it was considered for use in the TNG TV series. The existence of the J in Enterprise clearly does show that this ship existed at some point in the star trek universe too. The article has also existeted for over 15 months, so why delete it now and not earlier? Evil Eye 14:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fanon. This argument is an old one; the consensus is only canonical Enterprise vessels get their own articles. The -J gets one because it was featured in an episode. The fact it was considered for the TNG series doesn't justify an article; make it a trivia item either under the main Starship Enterprise article or TNG. 23skidoo 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. Please note that no source is cited for the vessel name being considered for TNG. Unless someone can provide proof, for all we know someone just made this up. 23skidoo 00:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Subject is notable although fictional. --Chazz88 15:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThough this article does not have a lot of info about the ship, someone can update it.Astroview120mm 04:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep as per Evil Eye Jcuk 16:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On August 19 Enterprise-H and Enterprise-I were put up for deletion for similar reasons stated here. See Articles for deletion 2005 August 19. Philip Stevens 16:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Nothing is known about her or her crew." (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More appropriate for Memory Alpha than WP. -- (aeropagitica) 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per president of deleting H and I. --Pboyd04 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Enterprise G should not be treated in the same way as the Enterprise I or H as the G apparently does have an importance as being originally seriously considered as the Enterprise to be used in TNG, where as the H and I have not been considered for use as far as any publicly available reference sources says. This alone makes the G much more notable than H or I and hence no comparison o deletion of the H and I should be made when considering the G. Evil Eye 21:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There has been an outstanding request to prove that assertion on Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G) for almost a fortnight, now. As yet, no sources have been cited that demonstrate that there ever was such consideration, as claimed. Uncle G 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- JJay 20:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, the article contains two paragraphs: one that is exactly the same (except for the name change) as the content of USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-H) (AfD discussion) and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-I), and one for which no sources have been cited after almost a fortnight of asking and which is thus suspect. For the same reason as in the prior AFD discussion, therefore, delete. Uncle G 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. NeoJustin 23:19, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
Delete - the ship does not even appear to exist in fiction, why should it be in an encyclopedia? --Ajdz 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 23:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the need for a Star Trek ship that's nothing but speculation and fill-in-the blank dates based on when other actual ships were around. Awfully pointless as a seperate article. - Liontamer 02:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Daveb 02:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is crystal ball stuff and there's no indication as to when or if we ever get around to this chip in canon (or even noncanonical works). Jtmichcock 03:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cutting-room floor trivia, like the fact that Hope class starship was based on a concept for the original Enterprise. Gazpacho 03:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nomination. FredOrAlive 19:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gazpacho -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge, but the only mergable content appears to be unverifiable. -Colin Kimbrell 18:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and update per above. Maybe someone can update the article. Astroview120mm 04:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. Incognito 05:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless canon sources are cited. Speculation and unverified statements are not needed. -- jaredwf 07:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 23skidoo --AllyUnion (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2006 (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.