Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Botany Bay

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 No consensus, and the battle goes ever onward. Will WP:FICTION ever be resolved? Or will it be eternal conflict? Think of the children everybody, for pity's sake let's end the fighting (cue chorus of Give Peace a Chance) (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Botany Bay

Contested prod by User:Ultraviolet scissor flame. No third-party sources to verify claims or establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - may meet notability under cult following and such but, the article contains no reliable 3rd party sourcing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or Merge into Star Trek. Not notable on its own, but maybe worth a mention in the main article...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 11:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Khan Noonien Singh, which would make a whole lot more sense than to simply merge it into Star Trek. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the references in non-Star Trek media speak to notability beyond that fictional universe, article includes significant material that would not easily merge into the Khan article. (There might be a better merge target, perhaps about the ships of Star Trek.) The article needs better sourcing, for sure, but I think it can stand alone as written. - Dravecky (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry did I miss something, what non-"Star Trek" references to you speak of I don't see any in the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Ah, that should be singular (my bad) but I was referring to the brief mention on The West Wing, as described in the article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies. When you said references I thought you were refering to the references section of the article. I still think my Weak delete needs to stand until the reliable 3rd party sourcing thing is cleared up (there is a slight change that the West Wing thing is just a coincidence after all as it isn't sourced). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jasynnash2, needs reliable third party sourcing in order to stay. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx)
Redirect to Space Seed. Not independently notable, but real world sources do exist for Botany Bay as part of the episode's production. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Redirecting (and by that Merging) to Space Seed would also make sense Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and the article is almost entirely plot summary and in-universe design specifications. A mention on the West Wing is trivial. Aside from the Enterprise itself, I doubt there are really any ships in the Star Trek universe which meet notability criteria. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasonable amount of context, major role in the series, good to have the information in one place. DGG (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its concerns one of the more significant Star Trek TOS season 1 films (Space Seed) which ultimately led to '1982's 'The Wrath of Khan.' Every Trekkie knows about it. NBC spent a ton of money on this model ship. Its notable enough. Artene50 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quadrupled the number of external references and, as an aside, google books returns 19 volumes referencing "SS Botany Bay", 17 of which refer to this fictional tv vessel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.132.16 (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All 3 references you added and the Google Books matches I found simply retell the plot in one form or another. They provide no real world-based commentary or analysis. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant (and nonduplicative) material into Space Seed. Deor (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2008 (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.