Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Wing (ship)

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 to Teirm. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-26 08:44Z

[edit] Dragon Wing (ship)

Dragon Wing (ship) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Deproded by the article's creator with no explanation. Article is about a fictional ship in a fantasy series. The ship is not the main focus of the story or a central element of the plot, it serves no notable pursose and it not a character itself. It is just a ship that happens to be in the book series. The article not only fails the fiction guidline but the general notability guidline as well. Cruft in the extreme made by what seems to be an over-eager fan of the series. NeoFreak 13:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to the article about the bookEldest after paring down considerably the original research in the article. A ship mentioned in a book does not need its own article if it has not attained enough notability for independent reliable sources to write about it. Counterbalancing this adherance to WP:N is the notion that if a group of editors create a project, then everything they create is notable. There is a project to create articles for just about everything mentioned in this fantasy trilogy. Inkpaduta 14:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment While that may be a notion by some it is not a notion that is congruent with established guidlines and policy. It's why WP:N exists and there is a creteria for deletion. The ship is already mentioned in the parent book articles so I'm not really seeing what additional material there is to merge that is not original research. NeoFreak 14:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge possibly disambiguate. I would also support merging the valid content to Eldest or the individual character's articles, but I seem to recall other ships by the name of Dragon Wing (including the one in the novel of the same name), so it might be best to disambiguate. However, I could be convinced that this particular ship is important enough within the series that it can stand on its own. It may not be an Enterprise or Pequod, but it does claim to be the premier ship of a particular fleet. Mister.Manticore 19:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - sorry that I didn't finish the disambiguation. I only added one to the Dragon Wing page itself when I removed the ship material. But you're correct; the novel Dragon Wing also contains a ship called Dragon Wing, and other books in that series contain a second ship also named Dragon Wing, so the Eldest ship isn't the only ship of that name. -- Immora 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, as stated above. I think this is not important enough to merit its own article, in accordance with WP:FICT. Without a doubt it deserves its own article on the Inheritance Wiki, but definitely not here. If it does get moved into another article the content will need to be seriously refined because of its length, but what is actually written is not terrible. UnaLaguna 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Requires a secondary source with 'Out-of-universe' material to justify separate article per WP:FICTION. Merge what? per nom, it isn't important to the plot summary outside the mentioning it already has. --maclean 06:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge sounds fine to me. I don't know the material at all to know how notable this thing is; I just split it off and worked on it because the original article had been slapped on top of one of my projects. Didn't appreciate that, so I made the separate article to get it off Dragon Wing rather than just revert and possibly get into an edit war. However, going by what other contributors have added, it sounds to me like the ship does have a notable plot function that warrants some sort of description of it, even if that's not its own separate article. Trying to keep the article pared down since speculation and redundancies keep getting added. The original creator (the material seen in the first edit of the article) apparently removed the notice because he felt he'd added enough to the article to justify its continued presence. It belongs somewhere! -- Immora 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

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.