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. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. One^twothree... 01:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Prodded and prod2ed -- with a last-minute removal. Oh, well. Anyhow, this wholly fails several policies and guidelines: WP:OR (interpretation of what some of these terms mean), WP:IINFO (are these terms used exclusively in the fictional world? what about the terms that also show up in the real world? it's a mix!), WP:DICT (it's all a bunch of definitions), WP:RS (there are no citations to any sources, reliable or otherwise). --EEMIV (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Blatantly obvious fancruft. Let them dump this stuff over at Wikia or private wikis where it belongs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The topic here (the particular fictional language of BG) just isn't notable. BG isn't that closely examined in any sort of independent published sources. The rest is trivial dictdeffiness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Much as I love the show, this is unsourced OR fancruft. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge those parts of it where there is something to merge. As a separate page, it's just a collection of miscellaneous. DGG (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for all it's problems, it is a useful resource. I'm watching the series and NOT an fan, so I don't know what these terms are. You have a page for BG objects, why can it not be extended to include verbs not used elsewhere? M-streeter97 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Battlestar Galactica, where it has context. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question for those proposing merge - While I agree a merge to the main BSG article or some such might provide context, can you address the issues this content faces in terms of WP:DICT, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:IINFO? I don't see how moving this content diminishes any of these concerns. --EEMIV (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Also, a good chunk of this terminology is already duplicated elsewhere, as it is existing military lingo.Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge everything that is properly referenced to Battlestar Galactica. In other words, delete. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 16 May 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.