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 merge GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul and GSV Lasting Damage into List of ships (The Culture) and no consensus on GSV Sleeper Service. There is pretty much no support for keeping the first two articles. There is more support for merging those two than deleting them. For the Sleeper Service, Ingolfson makes a good point about the references. Since no one specifically contested this claim, it will be a no consensus, without prejudice against renomination of this particular article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul[edit]

GSV Bora Horza Gobuchul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable fictional ship; unreferenced, and can find no out-of-universe references. Any possible salvageable info can be stored at List of ships (The Culture) or Ship types (The Culture). I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 19:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article would in my opinion be of specific interest to fans of the Culture series of novels by Iain M Banks. The book this ship is taken from, Consider Phlebas, was the first Culture novel and whilst unnamed for the bulk of the book, the Mind involved is a crucial part of the storyline.

I don't accept your reason for deletion of any of these articles - you say they are unreferenced but they are prominent characters from popular books with their own pages in Wikipedia, with all the information on the ships coming from those same books. You say they are non-notable but that is surley only your opinion - they play important parts in the stories they are involved in. By the same argument, you could also nominate for deletion pages relating to other characters and technologies from this series just because they aren't part of more populist works such as Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica. I fear they are being targetted fore deletion only because you may be unfamilair with the fiction concerned.

-User talk:Billydevil|talk page) 23.05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose deletion - Nominating user obviously ignores the fact that GSV Sleeper Service service has third-party references. He just chucked it in because he feels its all fancruft. Every article has to be discussed on its merits. And Wikipedia is not paper. Ingolfson (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No real world notability shown. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That only applies to two out of three articles. If the AfD submitter had done the right thing and nominated them separately, I would even agree with you. Ingolfson (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Ship Types or List of Ships. Trying to make articles to this degree of details is inappropriate, except for the most famous of works, unless there is really substantial published discussion. DGG (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, did you get the part that this is a fictional ship? Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable per Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is not a dictionary for science fiction fans. Drawn Some (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me where you base this on? Wikipedia is not paper - references and notability are key, not your fear that it might be used as "a dictionary by science fiction fans". Also look up dictionary. These are entries for the characters of novels. Ingolfson (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. IMO, the problem seems to be that the entry can't decide if it's about the novel or the ship. There are a significant amount of quality Wikipedia articles on fictional spacecraft (and very few rise to Starship Enterprise or Millennium Falcon levels of notability). BUT If there's not enough information and sources for the ship to stand in an article by itself (I'm guessing this is the case), then it should be merged into The Culture.--Junius49 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the plot details to the relevant novels, with section links on List of ships (The Culture). I do not have access to A Companion to Science Fiction at the moment, but as the reference is currently used it appears not to treat the ship in sufficient detail that an article may be based on it; even if this is not the case, Excession is only 12 kB and could easily accomodate the sourced merge. Closing administrator - I think all my books are in storage or on loan, but I should be fresh enough on the plots to put the ships in context; drop a line at my talk if you would like me to perform any merge. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And redirect the ship names to List of ships (The Culture). - 2/0 (cont.) 18:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ships (The Culture) - lack of significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found further third-party references for the notability of GSV Sleeper Service. For those who haven't got the books I reference, feel free to use Google Books to confirm that the literary analysis I cite exists. As I said above, I understand and do not really (except on a gut level) oppose the merge/deletion of the two other articles. However, I'd ask for editors to recognise that this third article is well-referenced and relevant, and that Wikipedia would lose out if it was removed. Ingolfson (talk) 23:04, 11 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.