Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vital Spark
: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. asilvering (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
=[[:Vital Spark]]=
:{{la|1=Vital Spark}} – (
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Vital Spark}})
Major WP:GNG and WP:V failure. Very poorly referenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT, summarizing a plot point (history of a fictional ship), and cataloging its appearances in various media, making WP:ORish claims that "The stories sparked considerable interest in the puffers, and many books explore their now vanished world." (in any case, if the stories sparked interest, that's not the same as this fictional ship doing that...). The articles does not even make the claim that one particular work or series is relevant to this ship, so I am not even sure what might be a plausible redirect target (per WP:ATD-R. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Transportation and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has also been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland.Cactus.man ✍ 15:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
CommentIf sources can't be found to meet GNG, I'd suggest merging to Para Handy - that's the article about this long-running franchise as a whole, and the information about the various TV series featuring the Vital Spark is duplicated there (whereas it currently doesn't even have a photo of the ship). Adam Sampson (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)- :A merge or redirect are always better than outright deletion, thanks for the suggestion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
- :That looks like a Keep now with the new sources. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Merge to Para Handy per the suggestion by Adam Sampson. The term "Vital Spark" will have widespread recognition amongst Scottish readers and those of wider literary awareness, but two of the three Notes in the article are currently dead links. I think encyclopaedia coverage is therefore still warranted. Cactus.man ✍16:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)- Changed to Keep in light of the substantial improvement work done by Drchriswilliams to bring the article up to sufficient standard that it now easily satisfies WP:GNG Cactus.man ✍ 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC).
- :*Comment. I'd be happy to withdraw this after improvements, but I don't see them. As in, there are some changes, but I still do not see any analysis/reception or such; all that is written and referenced is pretty much what appears to be a 'list of ships with that name in fiction and real life'.
- :Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I was surprised to see an article with such an iconic name nominated, but I found the article was in bad shape. While the name started off as fiction, there came to be several vessels associated with the name. There is plenty of coverage in newspapers of Vital Spark Clyde puffers that have appeared in the various television series. Several of the articles feature pictures of the vessels. I have added a range of sources over several decades. I've edited the lead to reflect this. There is a bit of duplication of content across the articles on Neil Munro, Para Handy and the three series. The Para Handy article isn't particularly well referenced but some of the plot-related content could be moved to those if it helped to keep it in one place. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
:Keep while I am a bit hesitant still, the article has been expanded to a stage where I'd feel confident in letting this stay around. Unopposed to further discussion in the future, but for now these sources definitely seem to illustrate the subject has some degree of notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
{{clear}}
: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.