Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victory class destroyer

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 delete. v/r - T P 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victory class destroyer

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

Entirely in-universe treatment of a fictional element from a TV science fiction series. Completely unsourced, no documentation of notability, not a hint at any out-of-universe perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteor Smerge (selectively merge) to an article about a higher level aspect of the fiction franchise, unless multiple independent and reliable secondary sources can be found with significant coverage. A general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is not a suitable site, such as a dedicated fanWiki would be, to regurgitate every small detail about every weapon or type of space ship described in a fictional work. This appears to be sourced to the fictional franchise (primary source), so fails WP:N. Wikipdeia is [[WP:NOT|not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of starships in Babylon 5, which could use a bunch of other things merged into it, too. I am physically separated from my B5 reference library, and so can't look up hardcopy references right now, but believe that there are probably a few RS print references. Regardless of that, a merge is probably the most appropriate encyclopedic outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2011 (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.