Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperion airship

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 no consensus for deletion. However, as pointed out by two editors, there is point in merging this prop article into the article of its film, which could need the help. The copyvio questions seem resolved. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Hyperion airship

Hyperion airship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

An article about a prop in an insignificant movie D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep Yes, it's an article about a prop in an insignificant movie.

Please point me to the policy that states we delete articles for being about props, about movies because the movie was insignificant, or that the whole category Category:Fictional airships should be deleted.

Yes, it's an insignificant movie. Oddly though, the airship has become rather more notable than the movie ever did. This prop has become a popular trope across steampunk, where the shape of the Lebaudy "hooked" airship envelope has achieved a popularity out of all proportion to its occurrence at the time - due almost entirely to this film prop. The airship, and not primarily the film, have been used Disney in their theme parks, even to this day. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep There seems to be plenty of commentary on this out there. What's interesting is that people seem to keep supposing that it's a creation of Jules Verne when, in fact, it was Donald G. Payne. Warden (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable per WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Trivia doesn't count as coverage (and we don't keep articles just because someone finds them "interesting").Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Merge Seeing as there does seem to be a good bank of information out there (this certainly isn't a stub) this should be kept. However, I just feel it's a little too obscure to have it's own page, although it definitely requires a significant subsection on the film's page. --Sebread (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Information / Question Why is the WP content almost identical to this external site: [1]? Is this article Wikipedia text or is it Disney wiki text, in which case it needs to be purged ? FeatherPluma (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Nice catch on the copypasta. Stuck a dupe tag with the URL to the Wikia article. Is this copyvio? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Even if it was copied from a Wikia-hosted site, nearly everything at Wikia is CC-by-sa anyway. There would have been a need to credit it (in some articles this already happens), there certainly wouldn't be any need to "purge" content sourced from Wikia. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The Disney wikia is cc-by-sa at any rate, but if we had copied from there, it would still be a copyvio if we didn't attribute. Nyttend (talk) 01:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Much of the content on our article, including substantial amounts of essentially-identical wording, were present in the earliest revision (3 February 2008), while the Wikia page history shows that the page over there was created just two months ago. It's a copyvio, but in reverse — they refused to attribute us, not vice versa. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Transwiki then? *shrug* --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Should be merged into The Island at the Top of the World. Gsingh (talk) 03:36, 25 April 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.