Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cylon War

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. This closure made from a somewhat procedural standpoint; batch nominations should be used sparingly, and in this case each article needs to be judged individually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon War

Also nominated:

These are all articles about plot elements and events from the Battlestar Galactica series. Wikipedia is not the Battlestar Galactica wiki; more specifically WP:NOT#PLOT prohibits articles for plot only descriptions of works of fiction. In addition, WP:WAF establishes that articles about topics in fictional universes must be independently notable, as established by reliable, independent sources. WP:INUNIVERSE outlines some of the problems keeping articles solely devoted to plot details. Savidan 00:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deleting all of these, but with some reservations for Cylon War -- but, really, that could probably just redirect to the main franchise article, which summarizes the essentials of the conflict well enough. Most of these can also just be redirected -- FTL (BSG) to the catch-all article on fictional FTL travel, e.g.--EEMIV (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what EEMIV said as he echoes my thoughts exactly. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @194 · 03:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge "Eastern Alliance", "Twelve Colonies", "Kobol" into the list of Battlestar locations article.
- Keep "Cylon War", and Merge "Destruction of the Twelve Colonies" into it ; as it is the central concept to the franchise.
- Redirect "Pyramid", "Quorum of Twelve", "Articles of Colonization" to the "Twelve Colonies" section (and possibly expand with a sentence or two about these concepts)
- Delete "FTL"
- 76.66.192.91 (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear on what content you think could be merged as the policies I have cited apply to both notability and writing guidelines. "central concept to the franchise" in no way indicates notability out-of-universe. Savidan 05:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why list them altogether like that? Do you think everyone is going to look at all of them at once? Break them up, for proper consideration. Cylon War is a notable event in the two television series, the comic book, and anywhere else it was featured at. That article is well done, plenty of valid content, which wouldn't fit anywhere else. The Destruction of the Twelve Colonies is also a nice long article, rich with valid content. As far as independent coverage, I believe any news source that reviews the series, will mention both of these things in them.

Keep Cylon War
Keep The Destruction of the Twelve Colonies

Dream Focus 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Twelve Colonies Having read through it, it is interesting, well written, and filled with plenty of content, that you could not merge on any other page without loosing much of it. Dream Focus 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Certain of these may be merger candidates, but these are notable fictional elements of a major sci fi franchise. Secondary, reliable sources, e.g. Google News is trivial to find. Nomination reflects a minority view of fictional notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, with the understanding that most of these could probably stand to be merged into a parent or episode article. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with support for the idea proposed by BlueSquadronRaven. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep so we can properly discuss what should me merged (quite likely most of them, but nominating them all together is not the way to a rational decision) And in any case the nomination gives no reason given why they should not be at least redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Even some of the people who like these articles least agree on that. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia .DGG (talk) 03:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Quorum of Twelve", "Articles of Colonization" into the "Twelve Colonies" page
Keep "Eastern Alliance", "Twelve Colonies", "Kobol", "FTL"
Keep "Cylon War", and Merge "Destruction of the Twelve Colonies" into it
Redirect "Pyramid" to "Twelve Colonies"

Senix (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as these unsourced articles contravene basic Wikipedia policies for article content, as they are comprised unverifiable original research that is all plot summary. There is no evidence to suggest that their subject matter is in any way notable, and arguements based on subjective judgement that these articles should be kept fail to address the issue that they don't contain any encyclopedic coverage at all. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all as frivolous and disruptive mass nomination. No none with any actual knowledge on fictional subjects would say to delete these articles, which means the only so-called basis for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In any event, because these notable subjects can be verified in reliable sources they constitute out of universe unoriginal research and even appear in published encylopedias. We may not be the Battlestar Wiki, but we are not Encyclopedia Britannica either and we cover articles that Britannica cover just as we include articles that appear in other encyclopedias as per our first pillar we are a combination of general and specialized encyclopedias. In any event, the above elements of fiction appear in a franchise that spans video games, books, three TV series (original, reimagined, and upcoming prequel series), multiple miniseries/TV films, etc. as seen at User:A_Nobody/Inclusion_guidelines#Table_of_notable_fictional_universes. Calling these unnotable either reflects extreme ignorance of the subject or outright dishonesty. To say it is unverifiable reflects not making any effort to look for sources, as the following book results demonstrates: [1], [2], [3], etc. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arguements along the lines of WP:GHITS are worthless. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they reveal that the subejcts under discussion have been covered multiple times in numerous published books thereby demonstrating the ignorance or dishonesty in any claims to the contrary. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per above and not that Pyramid (sport) should be speedied per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball sport (Battlestar Galactica). Jack Merridew 06:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. Some of these may be better suited for merging/redirects, but none of these appear to have an in universe perspective; most of them have independent sourcing that satisfies the notability requirements; and most of them appear to avoid the plot-only citation, as well. In short, the reasons cited for deletion do not seem to apply; and the mass nomination makes it impossible to constructively reorganize where necessary. Justin Bacon (talk) 17:58, 23 July 2009 (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.