Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romulan starship

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. I'm already relisting enough AFDs today so since there are no "delete" !votes and the editor who prodded the article hasn't chimed, I'll just close it. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romulan starship[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I removed the prod from this article because the nominator didn't use an edit summary. The original prod rationale was Non-canon and speculative arguments, as well as a number of terms that appear to have been simply invented.. I am neutral at the moment. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This can be cleaned up, and there are plenty of third-party RS'es for Romulan starships. i.e., Google Scholar has plenty of mentions. It's already a de facto list article, in that it combines multiple different fictional elements into one article that spans multiple iterations of the Star Trek franchise. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found the article an interesting read and I don't have the same distaste for "cruft" as some other editors do. However, lately I have been wondering whether articles such as this one would be better off on Wikia. Many of their wikis have a higher tolerance for such "fan speculation" and creativity then we do. When reading this I almost thought I was at Memory Alpha. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2010 (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.