Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starship Exeter

Starship Exeter

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike ^(T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 02:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - the only media mention I see paging through google is Slashdot [1] ... there are tons of Google hits, but per WP:MEME, g-hits alone are not sufficient. So I say delete unless someone can find other evidence of notability. BigDT 03:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not encyclopedic. Erik the Rude 03:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE AND REDIRECT to USS Exeter 70.51.8.60 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This has been noted in the fan community but is not as highly regarded as New Voyages or Star Wreck. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nn. -- GWO
Strong delete, as non-notable fancruft. "has been noted in the fan community" can be used to justify the inclusion of anything at all. It needs notability outside of a small collection of super-fans. - Motor (talk) 09:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This series is second only to New Voyages in production value and sports strong stories and original characters. JusticeCEO 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and should have been last time around. An unpublished, noncanon, amateur story is not notable. Adding 'Star Trek' to the front of it does not 'make it so' (get it?) Proto||type 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I see nothing "unencyclopaedic, possibly to the extent of violating policies on verifiability, neutrality or original research." Objectively the article has no problems, the problem is your perception of its notability. Could someone please point them out? Why should I not believe that this is nothing but an WikiElitist popularity contest? Within its field it is most highly regarded. Its field? Star Trek fans - still the largest and most organised Fan Group in the world according to the Guinness Book of Records. This is hardly "a small population of enthusiastic fans" I'll thank you not to use colloquiallisms in an international discussion. I have some grave questions about the creation and conduct of this AfD on my Talk page, could someone please explain?--Kirok of L'Stok 12:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously suggesting this home movie is known to all Star Trek fans? That's what your appeal to Guinness World Records is suggesting? It doesn't matter how big the superset is, a tiny subset of them is still a tiny group of people. -- GWO
Keep This is hardly "non-notable" having been featured in the Star Trek Fan Club Magazine, and recieved a lot of attention when it was first released. Their second film was written by TNG writer Dennis Bailey. Nick Cook 13:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable GassyGuy 13:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfic is rarely suitable for wikipedia articles... unlike Star Trek: Hidden Frontier which is minorly notable strictly for the fact that it has run 7 episodes, this series has produced a whopping 1 episode, with 1 more on the way. Nothing in the article or on this discussion qualifies this as worthy of an article.--Isotope23 14:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into new fan movie article. SJennings 14:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]