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 by consensus. Needs more sources, so if not improved further, can be the subject of another AfD after a few months. Bearian 00:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Command Carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fancruft about a fictional spacecraft, without sources demonstrating notability.--Gavin Collins 07:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & fantasy deletions.--Gavin Collins 07:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems as notable as most articles about fictional interstellar spaceships. It is in the Farscape scenario, which is fairly notable. Anthony Appleyard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 09:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No notability for the specific topic, no RS. If needed, this can easily be cut in half, removing the in-universe cruft, and merged elsewhere. MrZaius^talk 10:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but add more primary and secondary sources.--SarekOfVulcan 00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Anthony Appleyard.--Bedivere 21:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if sources can be found, otherwise redirect to Peacekeeper (Farscape)#Command Carriers where this subject gets a similar level of coverage. This is primarily a cleanup issue, and I don't see any real grounds for deletion. PC78 00:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources will ever be added, if the history of Farscape fan editing is anything to go by. According to folks arguing for the retention of Talyn and Moya, those ships were notable because they had personalities. This ship type doesn't. SolidPlaid 01:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Notable ship that should have some secondary sources added. Matthew 11:17, 10 October 2007 (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.