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 of the debate was delete. Shanel 03:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, some Star Trek fans think there should be more boats in Star Trek. I nominate this article for deletion purely out of spite because I dropped my monocle when I heard of this controversy and now I can't find it. ;-)

Ok, seriously, until this becomes a verifiable controversy covered by independent sources (not Internet forums) which we can use to reference this article - which it isn't - this should be deleted for lack of verifiability and borderline soapboxing. --Malthusian (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Speculative fan-theory? In what way is this significant or encyclopædic? I doubt that this would be allowed on Memory Alpha due to speculation bordering on Original research, let alone WP. Leave this out on Trekker message boards where it belongs.  (aeropagitica)  23:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. Come on, people, we have articles about every tiny thing that ever appeared in any version of Star Trek, and now we have to have articles about things that weren't there? Sheesh! Fan1967 23:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utter cruftiness. --Aaron 23:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as forumcruft, Trekcruft, original research, unverifiable, maybe NFT... take your pick. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete what the hell? I'm far from a huge Trek fan, but even I remember one of the movies had a fairly long sequence aboard a ship... Worf was made to "walk the plank" as a joke. I also remember an episode of the Enterprise series where Tucker got "pregnant" on a boat while visiting an alien world. Those are just off the top of my head, and I'm sure a true Trekkie could name many such examples. I doubt this supposed controversy really exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that a strong delete. From the thread linked in the article (its only reference): "I'm baffled that you all are actually discussing this. It's some made up crap by two cadets (probably one) who posted this and then left. The link in the second post is to a discussion about TBN. There is no boat controversy." In other words, someone wanted to troll a Trek forum, didn't get the response they wanted, and decided to bring it here instead. Strong delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it googles 110 hits. Not notable, and if Trekies really considered it, there would be something like 33,000,000,000 google hits. Bobby1011 01:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete forumcruft, utterly unworthy of an encylopedia entry. Camillus (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not even gonna dignify this vote with an explanation. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Fire all phasers. Gazpacho 07:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Beam this article up. By which I mean, delete it, even though I got a laugh out of it. -ikkyu2 (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRUFT. Stifle 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My head 'asplode. KWH 04:34, 28 February 2006 (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.