Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/USS Charlemagne

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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USS Charlemagne

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional navy ship sourced only to the books of the series themselves. I'm not finding any coverage in secondary reliable sources for this, and it fairly clearly fails WP:GNG. Most of what I turned up seems to be primary or non-RS stuff related to an equally obscure entity in the Star Trek universe, so I don't think a redirect would be appropriate as it's not clear if this should then redirect to the relevant Star Trek item or to the Revolution at Sea series. Hog Farm _Talk 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 20:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With the caveat that the ease of searching for this specific fictional vessel was tougher because of its generic name, I didn't find anything beyond log-line type stuff for the vessel versus the series/books as a whole. Agree that there's no evidence of reliable secondary sources discussing the ship in depth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Revolution at Sea saga, trimming appropriately. I agree notability is lacking for a standalone article, but see no reason to not merge some of the content to the parent article on the book series. As far as the Star Trek tie-in goes, a Google search finds no less than five separate NCC numbers associated with the name, suggesting that it never served as a major plot element like it presumably did in the Revolution at Sea world. I also note that we don't typically redirect obscure Star Trek ships, and that no one has previously tried to disambiguate this title. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG by a mile, nothing to merge since there are not footnotes, and it's just a plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and I'm not eager to merge what appears to be trivia which fails WP:V - also known as WP:IINFO. Pilaz (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2022 (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.