Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New 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   delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

New Starship

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of an anonymous editor who posted their rationale on the article's talk page. I have included it verbatim below. On the merits... I dunno. Sources are lacking, and there's not a whole lot of obvious notability, but there has been a smattering of press coverage. It might be a case of "Not Yet" as opposed to "Not Ever". No recommendation from me. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is advertising and also New Starship is not a notable figure or organization. Nominated for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.235.68 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 December 2012‎ (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete too soon, this is WP:CRYSTAL gazing.  If this museum every becomes a reality then it can be reevaluated.  Until then, it is hard to see this as anything other than promotional. RadioFan (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#0032; ⋘HueSatLum ?&thinsp;❢⋙ 23:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Notable enough. There's some press coverage already, and due to the subject matter it will probably be a household name and tourist destination for certain people. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete too soon. There is some press coverage but it's not significant.  Delete without prejudice for recreation should the "museum" actually become a reality. RadioFan (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * delete too soon, not notable today, we can't predict if it will become notable in the future 74.198.9.218 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2012 (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.