The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 17:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy, reasoning at previous AfD no longer applies. However, ship is years away from even having its keel laid. Probably should be redirected pending the laying of the keel in several years. Safiel ( talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep It is official. From the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs, News Release No. 937-12, 1 December 2012, "Navy’s Next Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier to be Named Enterprise". Reference: http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15708 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisTPuig ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. This page should not be deleted because on 1 December 2012 the U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus officially announced that CVN-80 will indeed be named USS Enterprise, the article thus handles a real ship and is properly sourced. It's no different then CVN-78 or CVN-79. -- fdewaele, 2 December 2012.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel ( talk) 17:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Declined speedy, reasoning at previous AfD no longer applies. However, ship is years away from even having its keel laid. Probably should be redirected pending the laying of the keel in several years. Safiel ( talk) 22:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep It is official. From the U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs, News Release No. 937-12, 1 December 2012, "Navy’s Next Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier to be Named Enterprise". Reference: http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=15708 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisTPuig ( talk • contribs) 05:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply
Keep. This page should not be deleted because on 1 December 2012 the U.S. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus officially announced that CVN-80 will indeed be named USS Enterprise, the article thus handles a real ship and is properly sourced. It's no different then CVN-78 or CVN-79. -- fdewaele, 2 December 2012.