- 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 keep. No consensus (or even arguments advanced) for deletion; merge discussion should continue at the talk page. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)
- USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I suggested a merge for this to Starship Enterprise, as this movie-only version of Enterprise not received significant independent coverage and pretty clearly fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is discussed primarily by primary sources and is already much better covered at MemoryAlpha wikia. However, as someone strongly objected on article talk to the merge, it is time to start a discussion here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep In the case of the Enterprise's, there is plenty of information out there specifically related to the design work. This is discussed not only in primary sources (which I'd consider to be the website of the designer), but also a variety of books by Pocket Books as well as unofficial sources. Much in the same way as Enterprise (NX-01). I'd expect the E to have at least the same level of coverage, if not more. Miyagawa ( talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- The difference, though, is that the NX-01 was the main setting for a four season-long TV series, where as the E was only featured in three of the movies, two of which were considered to be rather unsuccessful. And, as a result, there just aren't as many reliable sources as there are on the NX-01, D, or any of the other Trek ships that were featured in one of the TV series.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- You'll have at least the Eaglemoss magazine on the E, which I don't have access to, then in additional you'll have quite a lot of detail on the redesign in any books covering the films or Next Gen in general. The E has a bit of a history, as it was originally planned to re-use the D model, but this was dropped at the last minute. Heck, I'm sure I saw somewhere that when the primary D model was sold off, it was actually marked up on the model as the E. It was the first CGI Enterprise, and the last Enterprise to have a physical model built. I would say that the coverage compared to the NX-01 is probably greater as there are very limited number of sources for that series. Regarding the Eaglemoss magazine, I wouldn't use that as an instant reason to have an article as otherwise we'd have dozens of similar articles whose basis is only on that one magazine and then occasional mentions in reviews etc. Miyagawa ( talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The difference, though, is that the NX-01 was the main setting for a four season-long TV series, where as the E was only featured in three of the movies, two of which were considered to be rather unsuccessful. And, as a result, there just aren't as many reliable sources as there are on the NX-01, D, or any of the other Trek ships that were featured in one of the TV series.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Starship Enterprise. I'm not sure if its proper procedure to go to AFD after a single objection on the Merge discussion, but I do agree that the article should be merged. The article is mostly just in-universe fancruft, and unlike the more well-known versions of the ships from the TV series, this one doesn't have a whole lot of reliable sources discussing it in any way. Pretty much the only thing I can find that isn't fansites or wikias is an article about a building in China being modeled after its appearance, which while a start, is not enough by itself to establish independent notability. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 18:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Similar to what I have said in the discussion about the Enterprise A, it is true it only appeared on-screen in three films, but it has appeared in comics and books and had models and toys made of it. Moreover it was highly used in the publicity of these films and the films' reception should not make a difference to its inclusion. That said I think some good arguments have been made for merging to the generic Starship Enterprise article. Dunarc ( talk) 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, of course keep the page, all of the Enterprise ships are notable and should have their own articles.
Randy Kryn 05:26, Star Date 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would you have a less fanboy argument? Because I am sorry to say there is no policy that states "Star Trek Enterprise' ships are notable just because they are, well, Star Trek Enterprise.
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument at all, I am afraid. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 10:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The ship wasn't a minor ship in the series, it was the main ship and the principal location for three of the first ten Star Trek films, back in the day when the films weren't all about explosions and mayhem. The page needs further sources, yes, but not deletion. I certainly am not a Wikilawyer, but I know a topic worthy of keeping, and this page falls comfortably into
WP:COMMONSENSE. With over 350 views a day it is a valuable part of Wikipedia's Star Trek collection, and, given the interest in the topic, the encyclopedia is better with it than without it. As with many other topics for deletion, the act of putting it up for removal hopefully will get some editors who can add to the sources and further improve the page, so can someone alert the films project and the Star Trek project, which as far as I know isn't as active as it seems to have been. Thanks.
Randy Kryn 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a proper argument, you do make some interesting points. Do note that as this article was tagged on talk page with ST template, it is listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/alerts, so any fan of ST should be aware of this (provided they watchtlisted that page, hint hint). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The project page probably doesn't have as many editors as it did (sadly, many projects have the same situation, I wonder if a 'Wikipedia Project' notice and description can be put in a banner for a day or two to attract new editors), although maybe many of them are doing other things in time and space. A couple of us non-project members went through a long (and article improving) AfD with The Klingon Way a few months ago, and hopefully this page will have some improvements due to this AfD. Randy Kryn 21:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a proper argument, you do make some interesting points. Do note that as this article was tagged on talk page with ST template, it is listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/alerts, so any fan of ST should be aware of this (provided they watchtlisted that page, hint hint). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The ship wasn't a minor ship in the series, it was the main ship and the principal location for three of the first ten Star Trek films, back in the day when the films weren't all about explosions and mayhem. The page needs further sources, yes, but not deletion. I certainly am not a Wikilawyer, but I know a topic worthy of keeping, and this page falls comfortably into
WP:COMMONSENSE. With over 350 views a day it is a valuable part of Wikipedia's Star Trek collection, and, given the interest in the topic, the encyclopedia is better with it than without it. As with many other topics for deletion, the act of putting it up for removal hopefully will get some editors who can add to the sources and further improve the page, so can someone alert the films project and the Star Trek project, which as far as I know isn't as active as it seems to have been. Thanks.
Randy Kryn 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would you have a less fanboy argument? Because I am sorry to say there is no policy that states "Star Trek Enterprise' ships are notable just because they are, well, Star Trek Enterprise.
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument at all, I am afraid. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 10:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. No consensus (or even arguments advanced) for deletion; merge discussion should continue at the talk page. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E)
- USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I suggested a merge for this to Starship Enterprise, as this movie-only version of Enterprise not received significant independent coverage and pretty clearly fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It is discussed primarily by primary sources and is already much better covered at MemoryAlpha wikia. However, as someone strongly objected on article talk to the merge, it is time to start a discussion here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep In the case of the Enterprise's, there is plenty of information out there specifically related to the design work. This is discussed not only in primary sources (which I'd consider to be the website of the designer), but also a variety of books by Pocket Books as well as unofficial sources. Much in the same way as Enterprise (NX-01). I'd expect the E to have at least the same level of coverage, if not more. Miyagawa ( talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- The difference, though, is that the NX-01 was the main setting for a four season-long TV series, where as the E was only featured in three of the movies, two of which were considered to be rather unsuccessful. And, as a result, there just aren't as many reliable sources as there are on the NX-01, D, or any of the other Trek ships that were featured in one of the TV series.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- You'll have at least the Eaglemoss magazine on the E, which I don't have access to, then in additional you'll have quite a lot of detail on the redesign in any books covering the films or Next Gen in general. The E has a bit of a history, as it was originally planned to re-use the D model, but this was dropped at the last minute. Heck, I'm sure I saw somewhere that when the primary D model was sold off, it was actually marked up on the model as the E. It was the first CGI Enterprise, and the last Enterprise to have a physical model built. I would say that the coverage compared to the NX-01 is probably greater as there are very limited number of sources for that series. Regarding the Eaglemoss magazine, I wouldn't use that as an instant reason to have an article as otherwise we'd have dozens of similar articles whose basis is only on that one magazine and then occasional mentions in reviews etc. Miyagawa ( talk) 13:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- The difference, though, is that the NX-01 was the main setting for a four season-long TV series, where as the E was only featured in three of the movies, two of which were considered to be rather unsuccessful. And, as a result, there just aren't as many reliable sources as there are on the NX-01, D, or any of the other Trek ships that were featured in one of the TV series.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 18:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Merge to Starship Enterprise. I'm not sure if its proper procedure to go to AFD after a single objection on the Merge discussion, but I do agree that the article should be merged. The article is mostly just in-universe fancruft, and unlike the more well-known versions of the ships from the TV series, this one doesn't have a whole lot of reliable sources discussing it in any way. Pretty much the only thing I can find that isn't fansites or wikias is an article about a building in China being modeled after its appearance, which while a start, is not enough by itself to establish independent notability. 64.183.45.226 ( talk) 18:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Similar to what I have said in the discussion about the Enterprise A, it is true it only appeared on-screen in three films, but it has appeared in comics and books and had models and toys made of it. Moreover it was highly used in the publicity of these films and the films' reception should not make a difference to its inclusion. That said I think some good arguments have been made for merging to the generic Starship Enterprise article. Dunarc ( talk) 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, of course keep the page, all of the Enterprise ships are notable and should have their own articles.
Randy Kryn 05:26, Star Date 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would you have a less fanboy argument? Because I am sorry to say there is no policy that states "Star Trek Enterprise' ships are notable just because they are, well, Star Trek Enterprise.
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument at all, I am afraid. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 10:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The ship wasn't a minor ship in the series, it was the main ship and the principal location for three of the first ten Star Trek films, back in the day when the films weren't all about explosions and mayhem. The page needs further sources, yes, but not deletion. I certainly am not a Wikilawyer, but I know a topic worthy of keeping, and this page falls comfortably into
WP:COMMONSENSE. With over 350 views a day it is a valuable part of Wikipedia's Star Trek collection, and, given the interest in the topic, the encyclopedia is better with it than without it. As with many other topics for deletion, the act of putting it up for removal hopefully will get some editors who can add to the sources and further improve the page, so can someone alert the films project and the Star Trek project, which as far as I know isn't as active as it seems to have been. Thanks.
Randy Kryn 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a proper argument, you do make some interesting points. Do note that as this article was tagged on talk page with ST template, it is listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/alerts, so any fan of ST should be aware of this (provided they watchtlisted that page, hint hint). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The project page probably doesn't have as many editors as it did (sadly, many projects have the same situation, I wonder if a 'Wikipedia Project' notice and description can be put in a banner for a day or two to attract new editors), although maybe many of them are doing other things in time and space. A couple of us non-project members went through a long (and article improving) AfD with The Klingon Way a few months ago, and hopefully this page will have some improvements due to this AfD. Randy Kryn 21:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing a proper argument, you do make some interesting points. Do note that as this article was tagged on talk page with ST template, it is listed at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek/mainpage/alerts, so any fan of ST should be aware of this (provided they watchtlisted that page, hint hint). --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 15:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- The ship wasn't a minor ship in the series, it was the main ship and the principal location for three of the first ten Star Trek films, back in the day when the films weren't all about explosions and mayhem. The page needs further sources, yes, but not deletion. I certainly am not a Wikilawyer, but I know a topic worthy of keeping, and this page falls comfortably into
WP:COMMONSENSE. With over 350 views a day it is a valuable part of Wikipedia's Star Trek collection, and, given the interest in the topic, the encyclopedia is better with it than without it. As with many other topics for deletion, the act of putting it up for removal hopefully will get some editors who can add to the sources and further improve the page, so can someone alert the films project and the Star Trek project, which as far as I know isn't as active as it seems to have been. Thanks.
Randy Kryn 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would you have a less fanboy argument? Because I am sorry to say there is no policy that states "Star Trek Enterprise' ships are notable just because they are, well, Star Trek Enterprise.
WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument at all, I am afraid. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 10:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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.