Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UCIP

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 15:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UCIP

• Delete. Star Trek fancruft (although perhaps borderline due to age of organization). — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability BigDT 03:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's no way this is notable. Erik the Rude 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn -- GWO
• Delete, can't find any evidence of notability outside of a few fans. - Motor (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 16:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Motor. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not delete, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.167.92.24 (talk • contribs) 19:04, June 9, 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Perhaps there could be an encyclopedic article on Star Trek simming (currently Star Trek (simming) is a redirect to Simming). This article would be a good starting point for that, but for now its barely encyclopedic. There should be no prejudice to including appropriate quantities of this content in such an article. Vadder 05:52, 11 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.