Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cylon Raider

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Raider

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

Fancruft, too specific for an article of its own. (doesn't meet notability guidelines on its own) Should be adequately covered in the main article. Prod was contested by an SPA. Prodego ^talk 01:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of Google News references, [1][2][3] and numerous references in books. Granted, the article is mostly focused on plot, but when Cylon Raiders are compared to modern U.S. drone weapons, it's clear that the fictional element has made a lasting impression on the real world and established independent notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources above and rationale by User:Jclemens:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough secondary coverage. - Cavarrone (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this neatly fits in in the Battlestar Wiki but not here as there is no real world relevance. You might update the related articles there with the content of this one as they are rather short. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:46, 13 January 2012 (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.