Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 17:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- USS Enterprise (CVN-80) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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]
- Oppose. Ship is notable and existing, albeit under construction, similiar to its sisters CVN-78 and CVN-79 which have also been deemed notable in their own right for existing articles. Name no longer speculative after the events of 1 December, 2012 at the decommissioning of CVN-65 which was the primary reason previous articles had been deleted. Article is now well referenced from multiple sources unlike before. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One point I would make. The ship does not "exist" yet, in the physical sense. It will start to "exist" at the time its keel is laid. Until then, a redirect should be sufficient. CVN-78 is substantially under construction and CVN-79 has begun construction, having passed the "first steel cut" milestone and justify having articles. CVN-80 won't start construction for several years. Just won't be much here to put in the article for quite some time. Until the laying of the keel or at least the first steel cut ceremony, there won't be much available here. Better to just have a blurb at the Ford class carrier article and redirect this, rather than having what will amount to little more than a stub for several years. Safiel (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'd point out that the keel hasn't been laid for CVN-79 yet either. However that article has been allowed to remain and grow and has been expanded quite a bit as a result. Also I'd additionally point out that other articles have existed on this site previously for ships not in the post keel laying phase of construction. The keel being laid has never been used as benchmark for ship article notability previously. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the article will actually start accruing substantial content, that would be fine and keeping it would not be a problem. Safiel (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'd point out that the keel hasn't been laid for CVN-79 yet either. However that article has been allowed to remain and grow and has been expanded quite a bit as a result. Also I'd additionally point out that other articles have existed on this site previously for ships not in the post keel laying phase of construction. The keel being laid has never been used as benchmark for ship article notability previously. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One point I would make. The ship does not "exist" yet, in the physical sense. It will start to "exist" at the time its keel is laid. Until then, a redirect should be sufficient. CVN-78 is substantially under construction and CVN-79 has begun construction, having passed the "first steel cut" milestone and justify having articles. CVN-80 won't start construction for several years. Just won't be much here to put in the article for quite some time. Until the laying of the keel or at least the first steel cut ceremony, there won't be much available here. Better to just have a blurb at the Ford class carrier article and redirect this, rather than having what will amount to little more than a stub for several years. Safiel (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gateman1997. This topic is notable in the way that multiple sources can verify it is planned to be constructed. Right now it is still a an idea instead of a real entity but that should not preclude the subject matter from being written about. Peter.C • talk • contribs 02:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There were plenty of fictional Enterprise ships that were technically never built. Sounds silly, but one of the issues here is that there is a lot of history behind the name (Star Trek chose it for a reason, not the other way around), and therefore, I think it's reasonable in this case to assume that this ship will be built, and an official announcement goes a long way towards solidifying that. I would also say that any potential CRYSTAL, NOTYET, or TOOSOON issues are mitigated by the official announcement, as I would interpret the event "to have begun" even though there are the aforementioned special rules for ships under construction. MSJapan (talk) 05:06, 2 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. While in a sense this is like a movie that isn't yet in production, there will be notable events associated with it over a period of several years even prior to construction. In addition to the public interest generated by the name itself, this is a ship that will almost certainly be built and as built will be one of the largest military ships in the world and as deployed one of the most important due to the position of the US as a superpower. --Dhartung | Talk 13:33, 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.
- Withdrawal by nominator Obviously this is going to be WP:SNOW so I will withdraw this. Safiel (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2012 (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.