Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbital (The Culture)


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 17:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Orbital (The Culture)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a type of fictional space habitat that occurs in a science fiction novel series. On its own, it is not notable because it lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (WP:N). The broader concept of large fictional ring-shaped space habitats (as also portrayed in Ringworld, Halo etc.) is possibly notable, but this content should not be merged anywhere because it is mostly unsourced, reads like original research (WP:OR) and consists only of excessively detailed plot summary written in an in-universe style (see WP:WAF).  Sandstein  21:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep since you don't want it merged anywhere in The Culture. Perhaps it needs more in-universe detail to make it more clear that they are not (usually) objects like the Ringworld. (The center of gravity of the Ringworld and most other such structures are in the local sun; the center of gravity of most Orbitals orbits the local sun.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by OtterSmith (talk • contribs)
 * That is not an argument why it should be kept in terms of WP:N.  Sandstein   09:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I've done what I'm going to baldly assert is a fairly creditable rescue on this article, and believe its independent RS coverage pretty clearly meets the GNG at this point.  I'll also note that there's a fair amount of additional material that Google Books and Scholar hint at being applicable but that I can't see because of lack of a sufficient preview or a paywall. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  04:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The good work by User:Chaos5023 demonstrates the potential for improvement and so our editing policy is to keep and develop this. Warden (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Thanks, User:Chaos5023


 * Keep I don't understand why a merge back into The Culture was held to be verboten, but failing that keep, it is a significant part of a notable series of books. Greglocock (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2012 (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.