Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GSV Sleeper Service

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 was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSV Sleeper Service[edit]

Some kind of ship from a fictional work. WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles for plot only descriptions of works of fiction. In addition, WP:WAF establishes that articles about topics in fictional universes must be independently notable, as established by reliable, independent sources. WP:INUNIVERSE outlines some of the problems keeping articles solely devoted to plot details. Was kept for silly procedural reasons here, but even the sources provided do not establish that the ship is at all important outside the series, only that the series itself is notable. Savidan 05:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first section after the intro contains coverage by third-party sources, with links and refs. I'd say that passes "independently notable, as established by reliable, inependent sources". Ironholds (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sourced, linked, and referenced. Nomination reflects an overly narrow view of fictional notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as above. Stephenb (Talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If it is discussed in a reputable book on SF , then it certain is notable by almost any version of the guideline. Whether it ought to be merged is a matter or style, and an editorial decision. I would merge, on the basis that the content of this and the novel are complementary and would go better together (& a good deal of this is in the article on the novel already) --they really need to be read in conjunction. DGG (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sourced, and Wikipedia is not paper. There is no harm done in having book and ship separate. Ingolfson (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2009 (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.