Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft)


 * 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 no consensus. Well, it seems like the only actual notability guideline that applies here is WP:GNG, seeing as WP:NFICTION is an essay and a TV series being notable does not automatically imply that an object in the series is as well. While a bunch of keep arguments are too perfunctory to carry a lot of weight, it seems like there is enough disagreement on whether the presented sources establish notability that this has no consensus for deletion (although it's closer to a remove than to a retain - saying "remove" since some people are advocating redirects rather than deletion) exist in this discussion.

I've seen Piotrus's request that I as the closing admin review the presented sources as well but I don't think it's a good idea; it muddies the distinction between the admin who impartially determines what the consensus - if it exists - is and the admin that supervotes on the basis of their own opinion. Whether Piotrus nominated a number of other articles for deletion is not really relevant to the status of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NFICTION and WP:GNG. A merge discussion didn't achieve consensus (Talk:Battlestar_(fictional_spacecraft)) so I think it's time to push the issue here. I don't think we need more than one article for all various battlestars from all different shows. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - The fictional spaceship Battlestar Galactica is notable as an important cultural phenomenon. This is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable, independent source of the development of special effects model, its construction by special-effects artists, and its sale, the model kits that were sold for it, coverage of it in the career of John Dykstra, the Emmy that was awarded for the pilot episode etc. etc. etc. I'm OK with merging all the other articles into one but this is on the same level (or a bit lower) in terms of notability as the Millenium Falcon or the Starship Enterprise. FOARP (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, those seem to be primarily mentions in passing and press releases. Where is the ship itself discussed in non-primary sources in more than just a passing, off-hand remark? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Happily, the references cited above include exactly what you are asking for. For example, the reference in which they go into detail on how they constructed the model, or the reference in which they go into detail describing the appearance of the model when it was being sold and so-forth. The closing admin should consider that this is one of ~30 article nom'd for deletion in ~24-48 hours by this particular editor. FOARP (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The closing admin will do well to review the refs themselves as to me a few sentences are very much the definition of mentions in passing. And the number of articles I nominated is irrelevant, I had a few easy days to work on some spam backlog and I nominated like two dozen of uncontroversial fancruft stuff like Sergyar that was negligible for prod, since it was declined by a certain editor who tends to decline all fiction-related stuff he sees in prod (and probably should be banned from deprodding articles...) so yeah, it has to end up here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect - The sources brought up by FOARP have nothing to do with the actual ship and are related to the show itself or are just very tangential and crufty references. It proves nothing. The article about the ship fails GNG and the show articles explain what the Galactica is and what it does sufficiently.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Err... stuff "related to the show", at least in as much as it discusses how the ship was created, IS related to the ship. One of those references goes into detail about how Dykstra built it, another discusses it's appearance, size etc., another discusses the sales of models of the ship. "Crufty references" are not generally recognised as a WP:DELREASON. FOARP (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is Articles for Deletion not a place to remake failed merge discussions.  WP:NFICTION is just an essay, has failed as a guideline and so has no consensus or standing.  There's plenty of coverage of the topic, as noted above, and so it passes WP:GNG.  Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:BATTLEGROUND; WP:DELAFD; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; WP:SK; &c.  And for more essays see WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:LAME; WP:LIGHTBULB; WP:NOTFORUM; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - The fictional spaceship Battlestar Galactica is notable culturally and the article gets about 100 page views a day which indicates there is public interest in the topic. Granted the fictional ship is not as culturally impactful as the Starship Enterprise, but there are three reasons why the article is notable culturally. First, The article on the BattleStar Galatica television series indicates: "The series garnered a wide range of critical acclaim both at the time of its run and in the years since, including a Peabody Award, the Television Critics Association's Program of the Year Award, a placement inside Time's 100 Best TV Shows of All-Time, and Emmy nominations for its writing, directing, costume design, visual effects, sound mixing, and sound editing, with Emmy wins for both visual effects and sound editing." So it was a very popular series and aclaimable by notable entities. Second, and pardon my frankness, although I personally don't think the series was good in terms of memorable characters, etc., it was probably the best the lame, baby boomers were producing at the time (Wikipedia's article on the baby boomers indicates, "When Generation X came along just after the boomers, they would be the first generation to enjoy a lesser quality of life than the generation preceding it"). So until the baby boomers pass away, the size of their generation and their penchant for nostalgia will continue to make the article culturally relevant and popular. Third, in terms of coverage of the topic in order to obtain Wikipedia's notabality standards, I agree with User: FOARP who said, "This is evidenced by significant coverage in reliable, independent source of the development of special effects model, its construction by special-effects artists, and its sale, the model kits that were sold for it, coverage of it in the career of John Dykstra, the Emmy that was awarded for the pilot episode etc. etc. etc."Knox490 (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTINHERITED - Notability is not inherited. Because the show is notable does not mean ships on the show are notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect - The popularity of the show has nothing to do with on fictional element. The sources talking about models or the sale of props are trivial mentions at best. The special effects behind the ship would be fine to include if there's other real world context, but otherwise it belongs in the main article under an appropriate section detailing the general special effects process. TTN (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The fictional spaceship Battlestar Galactica is notable. This is evidenced by WP:SIGCOV in WP:RSs Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the show, unsure of whether to keep the history. The sources listed above either talk exclusively about the process of creating the models the show used or do not mention the ship itself. They would support an article on the special effects used in Battlestar Galactica (if such an article were deemed appropriate), but not on the titular ship. Rockphed (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This source also contains substantial coverage of the development of the Galactica models for the television serieses, particularly how they were constructed, what their dimensions were, how much they cost to build, who built them, what kind of look they were trying to achieve (etc. etc. etc.). Note that this detail is nearly all from the smaller-font sections where the author of the book is editorialising (i.e., a secondary source), and not from the interview sections. Publisher is Tom Doherty Associates - a reputable publisher - so this is not self-published or whatever. FOARP (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mentioned that above. I don't think it is enough about the ship to indicate notability. Do you have any sources that talk about the ship and its impact? A scholarly review of Battlestar Galactica that discusses the Galactica versus other fictional ships (say against the Starship Enterprise, or the Millennium Falcon, neither of which I am convinced are notable based on their current sources), especially if it goes into the symbolism of the Galactica being an enormous ship protecting a massive fleet versus the (relatively) tiny Millenium Falcon being part of a fleet or the (generally) solitary nature of the Enterprise?  Even a review of the whole of either Battlestar Galactica that spent a paragraph or two discussing the ship would be a good source. I am sure that such a document should exist, and I regret to admit that I did not look hard enough for it. Rockphed (talk) 13:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I found a review of the sort I am looking for, albeit it is just a passing mention.
 * A better source would have at least a description of the ship, preferably with further commentary on its role in the show. Rockphed (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * A better source would have at least a description of the ship, preferably with further commentary on its role in the show. Rockphed (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Contrary to my instincts given the number of disruptive ARS-type keepist editors who have already commented, this topic clearly actually is notable and merits its own article. Best to keep it clear of fancruft by bros who enjoy the rebooted series and didn't even know until they checked Wikipedia that there was an earlier 1970s version, though... Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that this is about the ship itself, rather than the series. If so, then I would ask what your reasoning is that it deserves an article, because I would honestly like to know. It might convince me if it exists, because so far it doesn't seem to.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. That's why I clarified that my view would probably be different if the article were about a fictional ship in some flavour-of-the-month show no one will remember in ten years. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That being said, per WP:ALLPLOT, I wouldn't be opposed to userfying it to, for example, User:Andrew Davidson/Battlestar Galactica (fictional spacecraft), and forcing such a user to put their money where their mouth is and turning this into the article I'm convinced it could be (and they are no doubt tendentiously arguing that it could be with no good faith sincerity or intention to do so). A redirect in the meantime would also be fine. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.