- 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. Sango123 15:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Star Trek fancruft. — WCityMike (T | C) ⇓ plz reply HERE (why?) ⇓ 03:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. as it stands does not meet WP:V and I've run more impressive sounding Sci-Fi conventions that certainly don't deserve an entry here. non-notable - Peripitus (Talk) 03:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ... no evidence of notability or sources with which to expand the article ... and I fail to see how the term "Star Trek fancruft" is appropriate here ... BigDT 03:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as a completely non-notable organization. This probably could be speedy deleted, as notability is not even asserted. Erik the Rude 03:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Tachyon01 04:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. nn -- GWO
- Delete, not notable. - Motor (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. SJennings 14:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly speedy. (Not notable even within star trek fandom.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability, no claims of notability, no sources, no future. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:46, 7 June 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.