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. Views are split between keeping or merging; either way, there is no consensus to outright delete anything, so a discussion on what to merge can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn (Tintin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a Good Article (from 2015), but it also seems to be a major piece of WP:FANCRUFT with big WP:GNG issues. There is no analysis or significance section; there is "Plot role" but that's pure WP:OR based on the original graphic novels(!). The only part using independent sources is 'creation', but that's just some SIGCOV trivia about how the author was researching materials for his work. Fine, I don't dispute The Secret of the Unicorn is notable, but I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this is redirected (maybe partially merged?) there (while the ship appears in another book; there is no source that cares about that that's not a plot summary). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Transportation, and France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tintin is not French, the comics (and the character) are Belgian. -Mushy Yank. 22:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article seems to be consistently well-sourced to books discussing the Tintin series, and discusses at length the creation of the fictional boat and what is admittedly some trivia about similar real boats, but given this "trivia" is present in multiple reliable secondary sources, it's probably OK to include. If the article was just the "In the Adventures of Tintin" section, which is mostly a plot summary (although just the fact that it is a plot summary does not make it OR, which is important), then I could see this AFD, but with the quality of reliable secondary sources, I think it's worth keeping.

I don't know if it's really a good candidate to merge, either, given it features in two books and the articles for those are already quite long. Maybe take it as a necessary split of The Secret of the Unicorn? WP:GNG just requires significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, which this article does have. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrfoogles Size wise, The Secret... article is just 3516 words, so can easily absorb this rather small one (particularly since the only useful content is the 'creation/design' stuff, with the plot summary being non-encyclopedic plotcurft, per WP:ARTICLESIZE. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: There are non-fiction published reliable sources currently present in the article, including Hergé, the Man Who Created Tintin, Hergé: Son of Tintin, and The Art of Hergé, Inventor of Tintin, supporting behind-the-scenes information about the creation and design of the ship. There are a lot of plotcruft articles to delete; this is not one of them. Toughpigs (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to The Secret of the Unicorn. The dev info here is valuable, but given the ship is primarily associated with The Secret of the Unicorn, and shows no indication of any actual real world impact beyond merely existing, I don't see much value in it remaining afloat. If the dev info isn't already at the respective book's article, I'd merge it there, since this is good stuff, but tied almost exclusively to the development of the Unicorn's appearance in this story. An article without any evidence it's notable in way of SIGCOV or actual Reception/Analysis of its role just isn't notable, no matter how much BTS info exists, especially when the ship itself has only appeared three times (With all being tied directly to Secret of the Unicorn) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a GA....and the topic clearly meets the requirements for notability through multiple secondary sources. -Mushy Yank. 22:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a GA does not mean an article is instantly notable. Rebecca Chambers, whose AfD literally just closed, was a GA before it was closed as merge, as one example. Regardless, sources need to illustrate an impact independently notable of the series. Citing developmental information relating primarily to one particular book/pair of books that is more fitting at that article fails Wikipedia:NOPAGE in terms of notability guidelines. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. The "creation" of this fictional boat is just part of the "creation" of the notable graphic novel it appears in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 22:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Pokelego999. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV without something more substantial about its reception or analysis. The WP:GA is only from one editor at a time where Wikipedia standards were more lax. A selective merge would be a valid compromise. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect even without sources to build a reception section, the ship is linked to The Secret of the Unicorn and can be described there. Archrogue (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect since most of it just a fancruft and fails WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 00:09, 6 February 2025 (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.