This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete.
Eta-3 interceptor
Consider this to cover Eta-4 interceptor, as well, since the two go hand-in-hand. The only canonical justification given for these articles is that there exists an Eta-2 interceptor and an Eta-5 interceptor. This alone, however, is not enough to justify the existence of intermediate designs. As I pointed out on the talk page, there's no article for Deltas 1 through 6 or 8 through 11. There's not even an article for an Eta-1 interceptor, and the reason is that starship series often deviate from numerical order. These two should be deleted. --Thetoastman 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete
- Delete. Unless someone puts the Eta-3 in a canon source soon, we shouldn't have it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
00:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) - I concur. Cutch 01:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- If it isn't mentioned in any sourcebooks or any canon information, it shouldn't be there. And I agree with Thetoastman, just because there are hybrids and predecessors, one cannot just create the intermediaries with non-canon information. Sato Stars 01:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree.Snoop 15:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ozzel 04:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- WhiteBoy 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. -- Fatguy2006 23:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. - Mando'verd 00:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep
Merge
I guess the most locigal maneuver would be to merge all the Eta interceptors into one article covering the entire line of models/designs. KEJ 10:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)