Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115)

{{ns:0|P}}

:{{la|USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115)}} ([{{fullurl:USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115)|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Non-notable building located at a military facility. Tom (talk - email) 23:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Very significant building. Responsible for the training of over 4,500 Navy Sailors each year! It is the only building in the history of the United States to be commissioned USS Enterprise, and may be the only US Property to bear the name once CVN-65 is decommissioned. Rossusna02 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)— Rossusna02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

:*I do feel that the USS Enterprise is a VERY significant building. I am saddened that you fail to see the significance of a Commissioned United States Building which bears the name Enterprise. This particular Enterprise is named in honor of the two previous US Carriers to bear the name. She is responsible for training 1/9th of the 43,000 Recruits that join the Navy each year. Soon she may be the only USS Enterprise in service. She has a Ship's Officer, who fills the role of Commanding Officer, a Ship's LCPO, a Chaplain, a Chief's Mess, and a full complement of Petty Officers who train Recruits from Reveille to Taps, seven days a week, every day of the year. Buildings such as the UCSD Medical Center, San Diego Convention Center, and Petco park all have an entry, and in my opinion, the USS Enterprise is MUCH more significant than a convention center or park. Rossusna02 (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)— Rossusna02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

::*If you feel these facts make the article notable, then you should add them to the article and back them up with verifiable sources. Otherwise, what is the point for having an article if what makes it notable is left unsaid? --Tom (talk - email) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*I have added those facts to the introductory paragraph of the article. Rossusna02 (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)— Rossusna02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}

• Keep It's the latest bearer of a storied name, and, as such, of interest to fans everywhere. Sad that we won't have a ship by that name anymore. Ray Yang (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:*"Interesting" is your personal opinion, and not a valid reason for keeping an article. You will need to back it up with reputable/verifiable sources that agree with you.--Tom (talk - email) 00:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::*Perhaps you should leave the article long enough for additional information to be added. Dan (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*The notability of an article must be established upon its creation, or it risks being deleted. If an article is non-notable, it should not be on Wikipedia. --Tom (talk - email) 00:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::::*"...an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#A7 Dan (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::*No, those are the criteria for speedy deletion and the conditions for their use are strictly limited. Articles on topics which don't meet basic policies such as WP:NOTE can be deleted after a discussion such as this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dowling (talk • contribs) 10:29, July 14, 2008

::::::*The Wikipedia Notability Guideline "is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Dan (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep One of ten buildings which has been commissioned by the United States Navy to train new recruits seems very notable to me. Furthermore, the information is being contributed by a commissioned officer of the United States Navy. I believe notability is being established by ongoing editing and contribution (the wiki process). Certainly as notable as the fictional and obscure USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-F) which has its own page. Dan (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge to Naval Station Great Lakes. The article on NSGL could use some filling out and merging the article there will help and not be mistaken for an actual floating ship. Its notable when in context with Great Lakes. --Brad (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::Delete I'm changing my mind on this. I've looked around at some links provided and there is a building 7115 @ NSGL but it isn't mentioned by name (at least on the website) and another link given was to: [http://www.usna02.com/navycareer/present/index.htm Gary Ross | Navy Career | Present|] which goes along closely to {{User|Rossusna02}} and borders on a vanity article. Please don't use WP to further your Navy career. {{User|Danswezy}} other than making some edits to Kevin Dean (porn star) in September 2006 has suddenly come out of nowhere to crow about the notability of the article. This is beginning to smell. --Brad (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*USS Enterprise referenced by name with pictures courtesy of USS Enterprise Association http://www.cvn65.us/enterprise_rtc_great_lakes.htm Dan (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::::*Okay, I admit it. I am friends with Kevin Dean (porn star) and I edited his article. I don't see the relevance. Dan (talk) 04:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:*I do not think this article should be merged with Naval Station Great Lakes (although it should be referenced there). The term "ship" is the issue, so perhaps the description of the USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) should clarify that this ship is a building. However, it IS a USS Enterprise and it IS a commissioned United States Navy ship. Dan (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• GIVE IT A CHANCE. This article was up for a grand total of 19 minutes before it was nominated for deletion. A great way to welcome a new user to the site, isn't it? Hitting him with an immediate inappropriate speedy delete, threatening him with a block, accusing him of having a conflict of interest, then putting it at AFD way too early. Just sunk the teeth right into his neck. SashaNein (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:*Please Do Not Bit the Newcomers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Dan (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

::*Hold on a minute. His article was speedily deleted multiple times as it did not assert its importance or significance, just that there is some RTC organization that has a building named USS Enterprise. That means nothing. He recreated it multiple times anyways, despite warnings, which is grounds for a temporary block from editing. As for the conflict of interest, his username is User:Rossusna02 and he linked to a personal website for the commanding officer, Lt. Ross, which led me to a logical conclusion that this issue is personal to him (and the fact that basically brand-new User:Danswezy in this discussion has said a commissioned officer is writing the article, so it should be kept; that shows me he has a conflict of interest as well and smells of WP:CANVASS). Considering his persistence, I decided it is possible I, in my infinite wisdom, could make a mistake, so I brought it up for AFD to see if anything can be salvaged and to get more input, or if it should be deleted. So, before you jump to conclusions, there's no need to "sink your teeth" into the old-timers, either. --Tom (talk - email) 04:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*I think it is logical to assume that the author, User:Rossusna02, is Lt. Ross (per article link) and lieutenants are commissioned officers. Tom wrote, "just that there is some RTC organization that has a building named USS Enterprise. That means nothing." Are you kidding me? Some RTC Organization? My brother was an instructor at RTC about 20 years ago, so this issue is personal to me. RTC is the United States Navy Recruit Training Command and every single person who enlists in the United States Navy goes there for bootcamp. Dan (talk) 04:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - At issue here is verifiability. The importance of the article is irrelevant. My father was navy, and served at Great Lakes, and I would rank the importance of this article ahead of about 1.2 million of the current articles here. However, in the absence of independent WP:RS, there is no article. WP:ILIKEIT is never grounds for keeping any article. If the article is to be saved, reliable sources must be added. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Naval Station Great Lakes. My brother was Navy and trained there, but this seems a trivial thing like naming a building after someone. The building itself is not notable because the ships named Enterprise were. --Dhartung | Talk 05:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge The only interesting fact is the name of the building. That should take one sentence in the other article. Also give it a mention in USS Enterprise. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Naval Station Great Lakes. Just because it has the name Enterprise doesn't make it notable, no matter how interesting it is for the fanboys. --Deadly∀ssassin 07:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:*When someone researches "USS Enterprise", they should be able to find the building named USS Enterprise and they should be able to find facts about it. Before this article, I didn't know there are Navy buildings which serve as training "ships" for every person who enlists in the Navy. Dan (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless some references can be found which demonstrate the the building is notable in isolation, which doesn't look likely. I don't see anything which is worth including in the Naval Station Great Lakes article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Nick Dowling. Just a thought - we are beginning to chronicle individual buildings within the US military, while whole armies, navies, and air forces of other nations lie sadly neglected in comparison. Buckshot06(prof) 10:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:*I think it's a poor argument to delete an article just because there may be more notable topics. Someone took the time to write this article and others will take the time to add to it. Dan (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Notability is in large part determined by the interest of the reader. You may find something notable and I may think it's a waste of time. However, it is still notable to you and others. Dan (talk) 15:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Naval Station Great Lakes. I don't see anything that makes it notable by itself, and there are no references to make such a case.--Boffob (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No sources to prove this is notable per WP:N's definition of "Notability, much less even true. The USN generally only has one ship bearing a particular name, and {{USS|Enterprise|CVN-65}} is still in commission. Hard to understand that they would "commission" a building as a "ship" while an actual ship with the same name is still in commission! Smells of a hoax, or at least a compelete misunderstanding of what a USN ship commision actually is. As written, the article seems to describe a training establishment meant to simulate the organization of a ship, and that its "commissioning" is for that purpose only, not an actual ship commisioning. With no sources, the article is not Verifiable per WP policy, and the creator and his advocate have shown no effort to add reliable sources at all to this point. - BillCJ (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:*OFFICIAL SOURCES The official RTC website describes the barracks as "ships" that are "named for an important ship in naval history." It also shows a picture of the USS John F. Kennedy along with an inset picture that appears to be the USS Enterprise. http://www1.netc.navy.mil/nstc/rtcgl/recruits/ship.html The website also references "State-of-the-art and climate-controlled ships (barracks)." http://www1.netc.navy.mil/nstc/rtcgl/recruits/life.html Dan (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

::*You do understand that the sources are actually supposed to be in the article, right? Perhaps you should have spent your time today adding the souces to the article instead of trying to convince people to ignore WP policies. And you do understand that a picture or webpage showing a building has been "named" after a ship is not the same thing as prof that the building has been "commissioned as a ship" of the USN? Still, a single building named after a ship to be used in training sailors is not notable on its own. - BillCJ (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*I do understand that sources are actually supposed to be in the article. I didn't write the article, but I guess I could spend all of my time editing an AfD and then watch my work disappear after this kangaroo court comes to an end. Dan (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

::::But "Delete" is not the only option being discussed here. Of the 19 entires (not votes per se) so far, 9 are for "Merge" to a suitable article, and most of the 6 "Deletes" have some caveat for merging info that is sourced. If nothing is sourced when the AfD closes, nothing will be kept. Besides, you can always copy the article to your user space, and work with the creator to souce it properly, and then at some point appeal the AfD. I'd recommend covering all 10 buildings in one article, as they are all used for the same kind of training, right? What makes this building more important than the other 9, other than its name? Seriously, I think an article on all 10 buildings could be notable, with proper sources, or at least part of an article on the RTC. I am sure I'm not the only person here who had never heard of this type of training, and there are others out there who haven't either. Don't let the fact that the article probaly won't be kept in its current form disuade you from seeing that the story of the training is told elsewhere on WP. The training is the really import part, not the merely the name. - BillCJ (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge, but only after checking sources. A cursory visit to various Great Lakes sites didn't turn up anything reliable. If it's a building at GLAKES, it's worthy of mention in that article. If it's named after a ship or if there's some sort of "commissioning" aspect to it, such facts could be mentioned in the Great Lakes article. Lou Sander (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If useful information can be saved for the Great Lakes article, fine, but this article doesn't satisfy notability requirements. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Naval Station Great Lakes, assuming reliable sources are located. I was unable to locate anything particularly helpful via Google, and frankly I was concerned that it might be a hoax, so I (OR warning) called the Recruit Training Command Great Lakes Public Affairs office. The lady with whom I spoke indicated that 10 buildings including 7115, that formerly were galleys, had been converted into "ships" in which recruits live. The idea is that they spend their days in a fashion calculated to prepare them for shipboard life. She stated that these buildings are in fact commissioned as training facillites, along the lines [http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=30146 USS Trayler], although that facility serves a different purpose. As one of ten training facillities at the Recruit Training Command, I don't see why one in particular is particularly notable. It does appear, however, that there are a great many sources for USS Trayler that reference the large capital expenditure to make a modern training facillity. If someone wanted to write that article, this could merge there. Absent that, simply merge to Naval Station Great Lakes IF sources can be found. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:*CLARIFICATION The 10 ships at RTC are new buildings (some of which may have replaced previous galleys) and seven of them are on newly acquired land. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=3765 Dan (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, obviously the general public doesn't have almost any information regarding Recruit Training Command and its buildings. If this article is deleted or merged, with all this bureaucracy an "acceptable" article may never get published and this information won't be available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

:*Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. — J. Wales, Founder of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

::*Note: the IP address above is owned by the U.S. Navy. --Tom (talk - email) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Naval Station Great Lakes, a stand alone page could be created incorporating all ten building "ships" instead of just this one. Shinerunner (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Unverified article about a non-notable building. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
• Add to my above !vote: "…with no prejudice against recreation should independent reliable sources be produced to establish notability." — Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with NTC RTC Every building at RTC is named for a ship so the RDCs can call them ships and the boots have to call the floor a "deck" and the wall a "bulkhead". the fact that this particular building was named for a particularly notable ship isn't really important. It is most certainly not a hoax, but neither is it very memorable. Call me grumpy but I'm not inclined to consider this particularly notable even though I went through there. It is, to repeat the refrain, notable if the subject has been covered in independent press. Check [http://www.navy.mil/allhands.asp All Hands]. It is printed by the navy but it is basically independent of RTC/NTC so we might consider coverage of a particular "ship" in boot camp to be independent. As it stands most of the text up there (in the article) is boilerplate material for an RTC building. Every building has a divo, every building has a chief, etc. Some of us may have memories (fond or otherwise) of the experience there, but that can't serve as a stand in for a reliable source discussing the subject in significant detail. And for the people bemoaning the fate of a building named after the enterprise, please note that notability is not inherited. The enterprise is notable (and radioactive...:) ), her follow-on ships will be notable (PLEASE name the CVN-X the enterprise!). Derivative buildings named after her are not notable. Would we likewise create articles for street names on military bases because they are named for famous battles, ships or commanders? No. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks much for the info - that can guide us in looking for reliable sources. As one who mentioned the "hoax" word, my only point was that we had no proof that anything in the article was even true. I do note you haven't mentioned that the buildings are "commissioned ships"! That one defitely seemed far fetched, and fits the rest of my sentence about a hoax: "or at least a complete misunderstanding of what a USN ship commision actually is." I would like to see us hqave something on the 10 ship-builfings, either in a stand-alone article, or in the RTC article. But I agree each building isn't notable. - BillCJ (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure how legit the "commisioning" is. Recruits are taught to treat each building like a ship. No other training command I saw treated buildings in the same fashion. Each building flies an ensign (though some bases have more than one ensign, each building in a base doesn't usually have one). It isn't a hoax or a misunderstanding, just (IMO) a convenient fiction to tell people in boot camp in order to raise the intensity to the required high drama of shipboard life (mmm...high drama, shipboard life, perhaps not. :) ). But check out all hands, I'm sure they have something on recruits in general if not this building. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with United States Navy Boot Camp not the Naval Station Great Lakes article, Recruit training is but one of several tenant commands at Naval Station Great Lakes. I don't like the idea of putting a bunch of boot camp buildings into an article about the naval station. Maybe all that is needed is a referenced list of buildings their names and the significance of that name / maybe other notable things about the building. I'm nNot sure if a building is officially commissioned, but USS Trayer (BST 21) a training simulator, appears to be commissioned[http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=30146] though I can't find it in the Naval Vessel Register. Certainly the buildings are not in the NVR either. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OBSERVATIONS:

• There are pictures of the USS Enterprise building on the Internet at http://www.cvn65.us/enterprise_rtc_great_lakes.htm The signage clearly shows that it is the USS Enterprise, so it is not a hoax. Whether we like it or not, the Navy commissioned the building. At least it's more legitimate than any science fiction Enterprise on Wikipedia. Dan (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• There are already articles about military buildings on Wikipedia (some less notable than the USS Enterprise). Bancroft Hall, United States Disciplinary Barracks, U.S. Naval Hospital, Subic Bay, Redstone Technical Test Center, The Pentagon, etc., etc., etc. Dan (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

::The Pentagon. Is. Less. Notable. Than. Building 7115 at RTC? Come on now. If you find ONE source in an independent publication that mentions the subject of the article in significant detail (or many sources that cover it in less detail), this AfD will close as keep, I almost guarantee it. That's all it takes. And for my money, those buildings you listed are all more notable than the one in question. Remember, we aren't concerned with the USS Enterprise in this AfD. The notability of CVN-65 is not in question. The Notability of Building 7115 is. Protonk (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

::*We are concerned with the USS Enterprise in this AfD. Building 7115 is USS Enterprise. Dan (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*No it isn't. It is named after the enterprise. Just because some boots go through there doesn't make it special. Are you an RDC or something? Protonk (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

::*I said SOME of the buildings are less notable, not all of them (the Pentagon IS notable). And that is the heart of this issue - For your money, the USS Enterprise is not notable. For my money, a building that trains over 4,000 sailors a year to defend our way of life is notable. Dan (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*You're assuming, of course, that all of us are in the U.S. and support your worldview with that last statement. While that may be true for some, it is not for all. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles that mention the USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115):

• http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/09/mil-070908-nns06.htm
• https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/pls/portal/url/ITEM/27DFB09F7D8B1C1AE0440003BA8967D9
• http://www.cvn65.us/enterprise_rtc_great_lakes.htmRossusna02 (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:A note on the links provided:

:* The [http://www.cvn65.us/enterprise_rtc_great_lakes.htm third link] is a photo gallery at a self-described "personal on-line museum". The first photo clearly shows the sign outside the building; the rest of the photos are of trainees or the interior of the building. Great for demonstrating that the building exists, but provides no assessment of the building's notability. Also, as a personal- or hobby-type website, it would most likely not be considered a reliable source.

:* The [https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/pls/portal/url/ITEM/27DFB09F7D8B1C1AE0440003BA8967D9 second link] is a PowerPoint file (.ppt) from RTC Great Lakes that shows the building on a map (slide 5 of 10), but with no other mention. Coupled with the photo gallery above, I'm convinced the building exists.

:* The [http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/09/mil-070908-nns06.htm first link] is a re-hosted U.S. Navy press release with a one paragraph mention of the building in the larger context of "Pre-commissioning Unit (PCU) George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)". Approaching a hint of notability with this one, but since the source is not independent of the subject, it alone should not be used to establish notability.

:From these three links I'm convinced that USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is not a hoax. But there are still no independent, reliable sources that establish notability. My !vote of delete above remains. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete no real notablilty - no 3rd party reliable sources that make more than a trival mention of this building. Which is a shame - I like articles on real things. I'll have a poke around and see what I can turn up.... --Allemandtando (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Additional Thoughts

1. If this article is merged it should be merged to Recruit Training Command's article, which is where the building is physically located. Of course Recruit Training Command is a Tennant command of Naval Service Training Command, but Recruit Training Command, being the Navy's only basic training facility should be notable enough for its own article.

2. If this article is merged to RTC's entry, then RTC's entry would really be incomplete as now only one of the ten new ships would be mentioned. Keeping RTC's article up to date will be very challenging considering the limited contributions so far and the huge recapitalization project which is currently underway.

3. Every other Enterprise (save one) has its own page, even the fictional ones with only a cameo appearance.

4. The notability of this Enterprise may be established by pointing out that it is Commissioned as a United States Ship, even though it is a building and there is currently another United States Ship Enterprise in service, that seems rather unique. If you go to an official Navy Website: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm you will find that the prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission.

5. My recommendation is still to keep this article and not merge it. Even over the last few days it has already evolved and sparked new learning for many people. If it is deleted several noteworthy events (buildings being commissioned and two USS Enterprises at the same time) will be deleted with it. If it is merged, the article will no longer be special to the Enterprise fans and will just be part of a larger un-maintained article. Rossusna02 (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:*For item #3: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason for keeping this article. Each article is evaluated on the notability and verifiability of its subject. If you feel that other articles are lacking in that respect, then feel free to nominate them for deletion.

:*For item #4: there are no sources—reliable or otherwise—for anyone to confirm that it really is a "commissioned ship" as is claimed. The Naval Vessel Register (as I understand it, the official register of all commissioned ships) has no mention of it. If this building is really unique in being the only building that's a "commissioned ship" in the U.S. Navy, it will have been reported in independent sources. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

::*Bellhalla, to save all of us time, it would help if you read #4 fully before you make general comments. I never said this was the only building that's commissioned, I said this was notable because it was a building that was commissioned and done so prior to the other USS Enterprise being decommissioned. With respect to #3, I have no intention of going on a deletion rampage.Rossusna02 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*But you get the greater two points, right? That if it "really" is commissioned (and not just "commissioned for boots") it will be in the NVR. and that the existence of pages about fictional versions of the enterprise does not change the fate or notability of this page one jot. Those are the two takeaways. Protonk (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

::::*Protonk, yes, and I do appreciate your comments on my personal discussion page. The reason why USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is not in the NVR is actually quite a wonderful story. The Navy used to have a Boot Camp in San Diego. One of their training facilities there was a building which actually looked like a ship. This building was also commissioned and put in the NVR. When Vietnam was in full swing congress actually launched an inquiry to determine why that ship had never deployed in support of operations. To prevent this embarrassing confusion from happening again the Navy no longer adds non-deployable training ships (Commissioned or Not) to the NVR.Rossusna02 (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::* That is an interesting story. If you have a source for it, my suggestion is that you could probably do to add it to the section, providing some explanation as to why it is not in the NVR. I also appreciate your zeal for this article. I understand that plenty of military history and custom are opaque to outsiders (often deliberately). I also strive to remember that wikipedia has a common language not spoken in the outside world. I can say WP:ITSA and expect to convey meaning to other wikipedians--however an outsider sees only gibberish. This means that the nuance may be lost on people--rather than stress the importance of subject when speaking from special knowledge, perhaps we should look for some sourcing that we all can agree on? I can tell you that the argument that notability flows from the Enterprise (which, even if she didn't carry the name, would still be notable due to her status as the first nuclear surface ship) to the building by virtue of the name won't get much traction. All Hands works. Seapower works. Stories on the AFNN work. Waukegan news outlets. Cast a wide net and you might find something. If we don't, we might have to consider merging this article with RTC. Protonk (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This building, which is aparantly one of 10 barracks at the base, seems similar to a hall of residence at a university (eg, as its a place where students live and study but most teaching is done elsewhere). There's a long-standing convention that these generally aren't notable, and notability has to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis in line with WP:NOTE. While commissioned warships and naval bases are automatically notable, as are universities (due to large amount of references on these topics which means that demonstrating notability is pretty easy), this doesn't extend to individual buildings within the base or campus. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:*This building, USS Enterprise, is more than a hall of residence at a university. As the article states, "This facility integrates berthing, classrooms, learning resource centers, a galley, and quarterdeck, all under one roof." In addition, this building is commissioned unlike a hall of residence at a university. Article 2001 (Navy Regulations 1948) stated that only those ships which were on "Active status" and "In commission" could carry the prefix "USS." Dan (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

::*And if you were going to name a building in honor of a ship rather than commission a building wouldn't you also name it "USS Enterprise"? What about UIC's? Personnel stationed at this building most likely are assigned to the [http://www1.netc.navy.mil/nstc/rtcgl/ recruit training command]. I seriously doubt there is a separate UIC for this building and the people sleeping there. Those people would be assigned to the RTC, not USS Enterprise (the Building). The fact that the Navy named a building after USS Enterprise it noteworthy to mention in an article about USS Enterprise, but not as an article on its own. Just because they treat a building like a ship at boot camp does not mean it is a legally / officially commissioned US Navy Ship. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

::*Yeah. UIC's. The divo in charge of the "ship" probably doesn't wield authority to mete out non-judicial punishment. I'm pretty sure my orders to RTC said RTC, not ship 13 (or whatever it was). More to the point, we aren't arguing that 7115 fulfills the exact same purpose as a dormitory (although it seems pretty similar to the class houses at Rice, although to be fair those have their own article) but that it occupies the same role vis the organization as a whole. As such, it isn't likely to be presumed notable. If, however, some sourcing exists that mentions this building specifically, I'm sure that the article can be kept. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*In response to Dual Freq, please read the previous entries more closely. You will notice that If you go to an official Navy Website: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm you will find that the prefix "USS," meaning "United States Ship," is used in official documents to identify a commissioned ship of the Navy. It applies to a ship while she is in commission and at NO OTHER TIME. The navy does not just go around naming things USS that are not commissioned.

:::*Also, a Unit Identification Code has NOTHING to do with a commission. It just so happens that most units are commissioned, so I can see how you would be confused on this matter, but just because a facility has its own UIC doesn’t mean it’s commissioned, and vice Aversa. You may also find it is helpful to look up the definition of commission.

:::*In response to Protonk, you are right, only the tenant command gets its own UIC, however as stated previously, that has nothing to do with commissions. Additionally, you are right again when you say your orders should have had you report to RTC, as your Reporting Senior would be the Commanding Officer of RTC. The Ship’s Officer, as it is already stated in the article, fills the role of Commanding Officer for the ship. As the ship’s commanding officer he or she holds Group Commanders Inquiry where certain NJP type punishments may be awarded, like a setback in training. Just like any ship in the navy, the punishments a ship’s CO may award are based on the ship CO’s rank. Hopefully this helps to clear things up for you too.Rossusna02 (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::Alright. I think we are on the same page. I'm not contesting that the building is commissioned (although some source needs to be cited in the article to show this). I think it IS interesting that buildings in bootcamp are "commissioned". My greater point is this: even if the building is commissioned in a sense that we may agree on, we can not imply that it is notable because it is an USS Enterprise--call me skeptical but I don't think the next ship named enterprise will carry a plaque denoting she is the tenth ship in the fleet following building 7115. I'm willing to bend on that topic, really. If we find some article covering this subject with more than 2-3 lines, I think we can work to keep this article. If we work on the assumption that all commissioned ships are notable, it follows that this building is notable. We need some source that says that, though. We can't rely on specialist knowledge to assert the (arguably) contentious statement that the building is commissioned.

:::::As for the UIC/NJP issues, I'm sure we can see eye to eye on this. I think that dual freq and I were trying to show that the importance of this "ship" relative to other commissioned units in the Navy is relatively low--I mean that only in the sense of command latitude and organizational structure. In the same sense I would classify NR-1 as a less importance command than COMSUBPAC. It appears that the place is pretty different from when I was there (the "ships" then were little more than places to sleep).

:::::Here's an idea. Let's see if there are articles (or even government documents) detailing this process of commissioning for training commands. Let's also see if there is some sort of reference that discusses the new "ships", various other changes to RTC, or the process in general. If we can find only general references, it may be better to merge this article into a larger article on RTC (and only that mentions each "ship"). If we can find special references, we can work to keep this article in question. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::: With respect to whether the "USS" measn this building is "commisioned". As I understand it there are very specific Navy rules for the use of USS in the name of an actual ship, including only one commisioned use of a name at a time. As far as naming building I don't know what the Navy regs are, but no matter how the recruits are asked to treat the building, it is not a watercraft.

:::::: Either the original editor misudnerstaood what they were telling him, or the Navy does not really consider this building to be a "commisioned ship". —MJBurrage^(T•C) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::My suspicion is that we have approached one of those quirky points in naval tradition where broad generalizations will not serve us well. And as much as I demand sources from the two editors surrounding the article here, I don't think I'll agree to a blanket statement about Navy regs without some recitation, chapter and verse. This is the navy we are talking about. Somewhere, someone has documented this. All we have to do is find out where. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

::::*In the [http://www1.netc.navy.mil/nstc/rtcgl/recruits/ship.html Where do I live?] section of the RTC website it says:"The barracks in which you will live is called a "Ship" and is named for an important ship in naval history." If you were to name a building after a ship and not the ship's namesake it would be named "USS Enterprise" or "USS John F Kennedy". These are not commissioned ships, they are buildings named after historically significant ships. I did read the [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq63-1.htm Navy naming FAQ] and to say that USS in front of a building name means it is in commission is what would be called synthesis. Nothing in that FAQ suggests that buildings can be commissioned as a United States "Ship", in fact its usage of ship and vessel would argue against a building being a ship. Sadly, the time we've spent in this discussion would be much better spent improving the inadequate United States Navy Boot Camp article. It currently provides no history, no prior locations of boot camp, no mention of coed training or changes relating to the addition of women in the navy. It is apparent that this article will be deleted or merged, and our time would be better spent improving the merger target and general coverage in wikipedia of recruit training. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

::::*As long as we're doing original research, the building address is 3425 Sailor Drive from [http://www.cvn65.us/RTC%20Great%20Lakes/RTC%20Great%20Lakes%206%20July%202005%20001.jpg this image] and mailing addresses during boot camp, as listed [http://www1.netc.navy.mil/nstc/rtcgl/family/contact.html here], indicate 3425 Sailor Drive is simply Ship 10 to the base post office. USPS zip+4 database doesn't seem to care what is put on Address line two it lists it as 3425 SAILOR DR, GREAT LAKES IL 60088-3525. You can put USS FLintstone into it and is still lists 3425 SAILOR DR 60088-3525. The mailing address for CVN-65 is USS ENTERPRISE, FPO AE 09543-2810 in case anyone is curious. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::*Dual Freq, I am please that you are doing research before you make comments, well done. The page you are referring to is sort of a “beginner’s guide to the Navy” so that Recruits and their families know a little about what to expect. I can tell you that the USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is commissioned. I walk by the commissioning plaque several times a day. (USS Enterprise Recruit Barracks Building, Commissioned May 27th, 2005…) I can also tell you that per Executive Order 549, 8 January 1907 and -- United States Navy Regulations, 1990, Article 0406 In order that there shall be uniformity in the matter of designating naval vessels, it is hereby directed that the official designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States, shall be the name of such vessel, preceded by the words, United States Ship, or the letters U.S.S., and by no other words or letters. Therefore, unless you are suggesting that the Navy violated an executive order and countermanded one of its own regulations, this building is a United States Ship. I agree that it is not a ship in the sense that it does not have the ability to get underway, but by executive order, USS is a designation of vessels of war, and other vessels of the Navy of the United States.

:::::*As for the mailing address, you would have to contact the post office, but common sense would suggest that the preferred addressing of mail is chosen to minimize misdirected mail to one USS Enterprise that was meant for the other.

:::::*I agree that a lot of time is wasted trying to defend this page. If it didn’t need so much defending perhaps I would have more time to research and add more information. If it gets merged or deleted, then you all can make the best of it. My interest extends to this subject only as a stand alone subject and NOT as a merged subject.Rossusna02 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Rossusna02: I don't follow this article or the talk page closely, but I'm in sympathy with your desire to defend this article as a standalone. There needs to be one or more instances of newspaper coverage or something similar to show that the subject is notable enough to have its own article. If you can't find 'em, it's pretty good evidence that there's a notability deficit here, in spite of any sympathies any of us may have. Jane's Fighting Ships would be a good source, but I'm kind of doubting if the building is in there. Find something else, and life will get easier. One could also consider renaming (moving) the article as "USS Enterprise (Building)" or something similar that says unequivocally that we're dealing with a building here. The present title doesn't quite do that.

:::::::Also, if there's a commissioning plaque or whatever, it would be nice if somebody could take a picture of it and upload it, then show it in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::: After reviewing all of the comments and the press releases I could find, I suspect that the real issue here is the word "commisioned". As the original editor quoted with regard to ships, only commisioned ships of the U.S. Navy carry the USS prefix. However a building (regardless of how it is treated) is not an actual ship, and so may not fall under those naming rules. I.E. a building may be named USS ... without being considered a ship.

:::::::: I also found a press Navy press release describing the "commisioning" of a training division.[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/09/mil-070908-nns06.htm] Based on said article, it is clear that the Navy commisions things other than ships (and does not always even treat them like ships), and so they could commision a building without officially designating said building as a ship. Based on that it is clear to me that:

::::::::* The building is named "USS Enterprise"

::::::::* It was commissioned in a ceremony

::::::::* It is treated by those in the building as if they were on a ship

:::::::: But none of that makes it the U.S. Navy's ninth USS Enterprise when it comes to actual ships.

:::::::: Are any of the other buildings named for ships that are still in serivce?

:::::::: Does any Navy paperwork or press release call the building either the "ninth ship to bear the name", or a succsessor to the existing aircraft carrier ?

:::::::: —MJBurrage^(T•C) 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::*A list of the rest of the ships on base can be found in the PowerPoint file I provided earlier as a reference, which I found online.

:::::::::*The main issue here with respect to press releases is that Recruit Training Command is for the most part a restricted base. Although tours are arranged through our Public Affairs Officer for various Official Groups, in general what we do here is not written about, which makes finding more than a sentence here and there in a few articles very difficult. Perhaps I will write an article for the base news paper about the two divisions I commissioned tonight and mention the ship in the article so that when it is published, if it is released on a public website it can be supplied here.Rossusna02 (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

:(outdent) didn't used to be restricted. I wasn't there after 9/11, tho. you used to be able to just walk on with a driver's license. Force protection changed a whole lot, I guess. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Lt. Ross, on your last edit to USS Enterprise (list of ships) you moved the buildings entry back to the main ships section with the following description "she is officially commissioned and named USS Enterprise, she is treated like an actual U.S. Navy ship in all respects, even though she is a building."

My questions regarding this wording:

1. Do you have a source that states any commissioning by the Navy makes the subject of the commissioning a ship?
   I ask because the Navy also commissioned the George H.W. Bush Training Division,[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2007/09/mil-070908-nns06.htm] which is clearly not a ship (nor even treated like one) despite being commissioned.
2. Is Building 7115 (named USS Enterprise) on an official list of U.S. Navy ships such as Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships?
   I ask because I have seen nothing that states that the Navy considers the building "to be a ship" as apposed to "treating it like a ship" for training purposes.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:*MJBurrage in response to your question, “Do you have a source that states any commissioning by the Navy makes the subject of the commissioning a ship.” The answer is NO. Just because something is commissioned does NOT make it a ship. I commission about two divisions a week here, and they are not ships; moreover, I myself am commissioned and I am clearly not a ship. What I tried to imply was unique about the USS Enterprise (BLDG 7115) is that it has been commissioned USS, and as both you and I have pointed out, USS is only for commissioned ships of the navy, and usually only one at a time. And there in lies my argument that since the building is commissioned and its name is preceded by USS it must be a ship, per executive order 549, 8 January 1907. Which is contributing to why I think the building is notable.

:*And as mentioned throughout this debate, it is a building, but by the US governments definition of USS it must be recognized that this building is classified as a United States Ship. And as you already know, everyone here treats it like a ship too. We have a brow, a quarterdeck, a commanding officer (ship’s officer), Command Senior Chief (Ship’s LCPO), Chaplain, Galley, Compartments, Passageways, Racks, Heads, Swabs… etc….Rossusna02 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

::*Rossusna02, I think you've gotten to the heart of the problem with the discussion here: there are many differing uses for the verb "commission" in the United States Navy. For Wikipedia notability purposes, a ship that is commissioned, i.e. goes through the ship commissioning process, is considered by consensus to be notable. Other entities—like officers (such as yourself), or units, buildings, or what-have-you—that are commissioned (in other senses of the word) do not have that same consensus of notability. So taking your point, that you were commissioned but are (obviously) not a ship nor claiming to be one, it seems clear you understand that there are differing definitions of the word commission. What I see here is that the "commissioning" of building 7115 is one of these other uses of commission. — Bellhalla (talk) 04:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

:::*Please take a look at the new External Reference Link I added. It is an official Navy Video which should explain my position quite well, and provide the much needed reference we have been in search of.Rossusna02 (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

::::*I created a reference to the external link you added. It is an official Navy video which clearly states that the building is commissioned and this building will be part of history as it carries on the lineage of the Enterprise name. I think notability has been established with this reliable source. Please KEEP this article and allow the author to continue developing it (instead of defending it). Dan (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment. All the other discussion aside - althought it truly is interesting to follow, and much of it is new information to me - the bottom line to me is still that despite a significant effort by numerous experienced editors, and subject-matter experts, we still have a dearth of independant reliable sources. We know that the building exists, and that it is commssioned as a training facillity, and treated a ship. Still, to exist as its own free standing article, there needs to be some sort of reliable sourcing. Absent that, while I would never support outright deletion in a case like this, a merge to an appropriate notable target still seems most appropriate. I agree with Rossusna2002 that Recruit Training Command would be the most appropriate merge target, and if no one else has gotten to it by this weekend, I will have a go at gathering sources to start that article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

: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.