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 keep. The balance of the arguments says their is notability here, and that is a keep. Courcelles 02:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shuttlecraft (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No established notability. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article as it is has too much in-universe detail. Shuttlecraft are important in Star Trek but what there is to say about them would probably only take a line or two in a more general article. BigJim707 (talk) 10:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Rotting corpse of a gutted article. [Almost] sufficiently covered at User:EEMIV/Spacecraft_in_Star_Trek, which I hope to move to mainspace within a week. --EEMIV (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete EMMIV's version seems superior in any way that counts. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability is easily established by reference to the numerous sources which detail this topic. The references to another draft article above seem to demonstrate that improvement is feasible by means of ordinary editing. It is not our editing policy to delete articles in the course of such improvement. We make changes in situ so as to preserve the edit history. I have made a start on this. Warden (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, please see WP:GNG. While I appreciate your efforts, I do not see that this topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources". Second, the file you added here violates WP:NFCC Policy 10c and I am going to remove it. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your image addition. The file lacks a non-free use rationale. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notable outside general vessel info, per EEMIV. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The expense of showing shuttlecraft on-screen was essential to the development of the transporter. Roddenberry made the shuttlecraft central in the plot of "Galileo Seven" specifically to force the construction of a shuttlecraft set, which is a notable milestone in the development of the franchise. The frequent destruction of shuttles attached to the stranded Voyager has also frequently been remarked upon in reliable sources. Powers ^T 16:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they didn't have the shuttecraft finished on time so they had to start filming the pilot episode without it, deciding they'd just beam people to the planet instead. Dream Focus 16:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Add any notable information to EMMIV's article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is almost entirely in-universe at this point. That's great if you want a grab-bag of trivia on Ablative hull armor and such. Let's leave that to Memory alpha and (regrettably) delete this article. Majoreditor (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep"Too much in-universe detail?" Then use the edit button. Google book search shows the following books which are not franchise novels, with coverage of shuttlecraft on Star Trek: [1], [2], [3], a real world simulation, [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Appears to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Edison makes a convincing argument. Dream Focus 02:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep EEMIV's version doesn't provide a justification for deletion of an existing article, but a histmerge after editorial merging may be appropriate. Shuttlecraft in Star Trek are notable, per what Lt. Powers states and what Edison demonstrated above. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable per sources provided by Edison. --Pnm (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2011 (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.