Deletion of Nanoprobe (Star Trek) (2nd nomination)

Comment: as page has no evidence of receiving significant coverage in Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources|secondary sources that are Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources|independent of the subject (as directed by the |notability guideline) and is wholly constitutive of |plot.  Alternatively, '''merge''' whatever plot isn't already mentioned duly at Borg (Star Trek
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:PLOT)

Comment: Looks like the naysayers http://www.startrek-voyager.info/j.html need http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/technology/article/3963.html more http://ovariancancer.about.com/b/2008/06/07/cancer-nanoprobe-treatment-the-future-is-now.htm sources http://en.allexperts.com/q/Star-Trek-Next-1184/2008/5/Borg-assimlation.htm to http://www.experiencefestival.com/borg_-_famous_maxim establish http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Borg independent http://startrek.wikia.com/wiki/Seven_of_Nine coverage http://www.star-trek-voyager.net/borg_index.htm in http://www.temple.edu/ispr/examples/ex04_01_14.html multiple http://www.jklm.net/atn/borgccgcheck.htm numerous http://commerce35.pair.com/mrwong/wiki/index.php/Species_8472 sources. Yes, I've included some pretty thin sources, but there are a bunch of them. Yes, that smacks of  but that's not my point: the point is these things are ''all over the place''. They are a part of pop culture, and the web hits demonstrate that. The news hits support it. The real-world technology corroborates it by crossing it over from fiction to fact. And - I still haven't even looked at the old AfD, which apparently has more support for keeping this article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)