Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovery One

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. Tone 22:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery One

[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)

This fictional spacecraft gets many passing mentions in discussions of the novels and movies in which it appears, but significant coverage of the ship itself is lacking. Of the three sources cited in the article, one is not independent, one mentions the ship in passing as an example of artificial gravity, and one doesn't mention it at all. RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Artificial Gravity discusses the spaceship at length in an out-of-universe context, both with respect to its scientific feasibility, and its construction and filming. The huge rotating set for the artificial gravity scenes on the ship cost $750,000—a significant portion of the film budget according to that book. There is also The 2001 File: Harry Lange and the Design of the Landmark Science Fiction Film. Harry Lange, of course, is the NASA expert hired by Kubrik to design the film's spaceships and equipment. There are several other books with limited preview, but are clearly going to have significant amounts of information: 2001:Filming the Future and Space Odyssey: Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, and the Making of a Masterpiece. SpinningSpark 01:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Snow Keep per Spinningspark above. Since there was not a consensus here, I could not close. I would, however, suggest a possible renaming to include a parenthetical qualifier, but won't make it a specific caveat. Doug Mehus T·C 18:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Parenthetical disambiguation is only used when there is another article of that name to distinguish it from, and there is none in this case. See WP:PARENDIS; when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary. SpinningSpark 22:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified by Spinning Park which enable WP:GNG to be passed and deletion is no longer necessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2019 (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.