Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Phantom (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. Singularity 07:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] USS Phantom (starship)

USS Phantom (starship) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete Non-encyclopedic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete So little info that it's almost speedily deletable for lack of context. Probably non-encyclopedic although I have no idea what "Bravofleet" is. Merenta (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete As far as I can see there's not even a clue as to what work of fiction it's from.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fiction? Ryan4314 (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Fiction as in I don't believe that the USS Phantom is a real starship that I could hop in and go for a ride.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL dude I was joking, I don't think "Starships" are around yet, unless you have 1, do you? Can I hop in and have a ride? ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i'm afraid that's classified. Actually I wasn't sure if it was a comment on the semantics between "Fiction" a something in an RPG/Sim setting. It's all cool.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point mate, I swear some people will argue the earth is flat on these AFD's lol. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete From what I can see, this is a part of some Star Trek simming group [1]. I don't even think the sim is notable, much less the group or the specific ship. Should be speedied. -- GJD (Talk to me|Damage I've done) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of context. The simulation/rpg might be notable, but a single minor element of that rpg certainly isn't, especially with no sources or context whatsoever. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of content, lack of context and lack of notability. Majoreditor (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2007 (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.