Fake EnterpriseEdit

Deletion rationale: If I recall correctly, this "fake" was never specifically referred to as "The Fake Enterprise". That alone doesn't prevent it from becoming an article, of course, but combined with the fact that the only possible content is a one-line description that might as well be put in the few articles that might reference it (instead of a link to this page). My suggestion is to delete, but otherwise, at least think about a better title... -- Cid Highwind 11:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: I think we should keep this, but perhaps rename. We have USS Voyager (mimetic) afterall. There are other fake ships as well. Jaf 13:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Jaf

The problem is the name. The Fake Enterprise is titled with capital letters in such a way that it is a proper noun, as if that is the actual name. USS Voyager (mimetic) is a descriptive name, it is based on what it was, without making up a new proper noun. In addition, at least in that case we had a full ship. In this case, we have an interior of a ship, we have rooms. I do not remember seeing a ship that could fly, or even the outside of it being like the Enterprise. An article on this might be a good idea, but certainly not under this name. Delete or re-write under new name, like USS Enterprise (fake). --OuroborosCobra talk 13:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe USS Enterprise (Gideon). -- StAkAr Karnak 14:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
A move to USS Enterprise (Gideon) or USS Enterprise (replica) sounds good to me. --From Andoria with Love 21:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I vote for a move as well. I'm good with either new title. -- Renegade54 21:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I vote keep but I have no problem with a name change. Federation 02:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
USS Voyager (mimetic) is more than a single line. Delete this page post haste. "The Mark of Gideon" has all the information, and much more, that is given here in reference to the ship. (and "The Mark of Gideon" is a stub..should say how much this article is worth.) --6/6 Subspace 06:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The difference between this and USS Voyager (mimetic) is that one was really a ship, and the other one just a bunch of rooms with an unknown external architecture. The other difference is that one of them is a full article, while the other one is just a one-sentence description, and unlikely to become more than that anytime soon. So, does it really have to be a separate page? Why? -- Cid Highwind 08:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I realize this is probably a good case for deletion (i'm undecided) but just so you know i moved the article to the name USS Enterprise (replica). Some of the discussion here was that the article was incorrectly named, that is not a rationale for deletion, it is a rationale for renaming, so i have done so. it might help keep the conversation on track. -- Captain M.K.B. 14:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
in this case the content is truly worthless. --6/6 Subspace 05:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Aw, go ahead and delete it. Cid's right, it's just a bunch of rooms put together to look like a ship. It doesn't really need its own article. --From Andoria with Love 01:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Do those who wanted this page to be moved still wish to keep it around? I'm trying to get this unanimous before deleting it. Mike, have you reached a decision yet? --From Andoria with Love 11:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with a delete at this point. -- Renegade54 15:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else? Jaf? Mike? Cobra? Federation? --From Andoria with Love 05:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and say delete. It makes sense to have Voyager's mimetic copy. That ship had a different course and missions and whatnot. The Fake (sorry, fake) Enterprise just seemed to be a one time use only kind of thing. ----Willie 08:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the redirect for "Fake Enterprise" and moved this discussion to focus on USS Enterprise (replica). We need to do something with this tomorrow, though. --From Andoria with Love 09:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me drag myself out of this cold I have. I have no problem keeping the article. It could use some fleshing out. Someone else can do that, or I will when I stop feeling this ill. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You bastard, you were supposed to say "DELETE"! No soup for you! :P --From Andoria with Love 18:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping for a unanimous decision, but that probably isn't gonna happen, so I guess we must go by vote. By that count (not counting the votes for move), we have five votes for deletion, three for keep, and one undecided. Not a very big consensus, but I say we go with it... does anybody have anything else to add before I pass judgment? :-P --From Andoria with Love 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, me. A lot of those votes (like mine) were based on the old contents and the old article name. Seeing as the name changed (which was suggested as an alternative solution in a number of votes), I think we need to start the process over again. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
This article got a reprieve because I forgot about it, but I am not prepared to pass judgment. Will the defendant please rise... (wait for it) --From Andoria with Love 04:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin resolution: This article was initially brought up for deletion due to naming issues when it was known as Fake Enterprise. Now that those have been resolved, however, the question remained as to whether the article's contents were worthy of keeping. Because no consensus can be reached, and because the article's contents are not in violation of policy, the article shall remain, as is, and may be brought back up for deletion in a month's time if problems still exist. This discussion page will be moved back to its prior name to allow for the potential future discussion of the deletion of USS Enterprise (replica). For now, however, that page will be kept, but the Fake Enterprise redirect which resulted from the move to USS Enterprise (replica) has been deleted. --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


See Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion/Fake Enterprise. PNA can be removed if no one has a problem with the article anymore. --From Andoria with Love 04:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

category Edit

I added the Fictional tech category because it isn't a real starship, (and to try to bring down the list of uncat. pages) but it can be changed if there is one with a better fit.--31dot 13:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "landmarks". It's a structure on a planet's surface. --Alan 14:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds better, as it isn't really a "technology" itself.--31dot 01:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)