Deletion of Command Carrier (2nd nomination)

Comment: Proposer is saying that this material can't be merged elsewhere and it's too soon since the last AFD.  See .  I did a quick http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22command+carrier%22+farscape&btnG=Search+Books book search myself which leads me to believe that more is possible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOEFFORT)

Comment: I have sort of a soft spot for these articles since they are sort of what got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place. Yes in hindsight there are issues, mostly the in-universe perspective. As for the notability question of ficational subjects that seems to be a fuzzy topic on the best of days (and I'm inclined to think this is notable), and the guideline itself appear to be disputed at the moment. Usualy it seems to come down to popularity and how many users like the subject. Farscape beeing somewhat obscure in the grand scheme of Sci-fi shows is at a disadvantage here I guess, while obscure minor characters from Star Wars expanded universe novels or games tend to stick around (no I'm not trying to argue that , just an observation). I'm also a bit puzzled as to why there is not even a "List of Farscpae spacecraft", it would seem a far better solution than the outright deletion most Farscape spacecraft articles. Instead they seem to be shoehorned into vaguely related articles (such as the list of races) and reduced to maybe a single sentence. I guess in the end of the day my reasons for wanting to keep it boils down to mostly "I like it" with a dash of "does no harm" (wich is why I'm not making this a "vote" as such), but I would like to point out that  is hardly an iron clad rule, it is entierly permissable to have "sub articles" about elements of an overall notable work of fiction (Farscape in this case, and Command Carriers are a fairly major plot element of Farscape). This is not a kind of article we '''have''' to delete per some policy. Granted it's not the best of articles, and it haven't improved a lot lately, but I feel people have been a little to eager to delete these kinds of articles lately (unlike say a poorly sourced negative bio about a marginaly notable living person). Ok, yeah I've been around long enough to know how these things work, just because there is a tonne of other stuff that need deletion more badly doens't mean other stuff is kept, and people have differnet priorities. Mostly just wanted to vent of a little pent up "frustration" after noticing that pretty much all the articles I've created or contributed a lot to when I got into Wikipedia have gotten either deleted outright, or first merged to a list and then deleted lately (I've never claimed to be a major contributor content wise), just the way of the wiky though I guess. Sorry about the rant, though hopefully some food for thought
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:FICT)