Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Battlestar Galactica (1978) and Battlestar Galactica (2003)


 * 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 Unsourced OR. Spartaz Humbug! 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Battlestar Galactica (1978) and Battlestar Galactica (2003)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is unencyclopedic, unattributable, unverifiable and almost entirely original research. Could qualify as cruft. Cumulus Clouds 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If this page qualifies we could have millions of non notable pages comparing various topics. Decoratrix 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but add to relevant WikiProjects' cleanup lists  central cleanup. The article is a legitimate one, and the general body is good, but some of the writing contravenes the MOS or is just inappropriate. It does need to be shrunk a bit, but as a wealth of relevant information it should be kept. If the final outcome of this AfD is to delete it, could someone please notify me and/or copy out the code of the article so that it can be moved to the Battlestar wiki - even if it fails Wikipedia policies and guidelines, some of the writing is just too good to lose completely. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of having this article as a clearinghouse for information on each of those characters, I would advise you to do things the right way and distribute them to each of the character's (or series') articles. If you do so, you must cite sources, otherwise it's original research and may be deleted. Cumulus Clouds 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete The article is predominantly an unsourced pile of original research that is more suited for a fansite than an article in an encyclopedia.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to the BattlestarWiki. 132.205.99.122 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per IP above.   jj137  ( Talk ) 21:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete What an enormous amount of material! It's all unsourced, even if uncontroversial, so it falls somewhere into the "marshy middle ground" between original research and synthesis. I would change this opinion, of course, if an independent source made the comparison (rather than the article editor). Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Not particualry useful, and violated WP:OR. Still would be valuable to fans of show, however. ff m  00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Since there is a "BattlestarWiki", that's a perfect place for it.  I enjoyed the article a lot, so it'll be nice if it survives somewhere.  Interesting original research is still original research.  Mandsford 01:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwikied to the BattlestarWiki. Move to Speedy Delete this article and Speedy Close this nom. Cumulus Clouds 17:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki -- only if released under this Creative Commons license. Since the GFDL and the CC-NC-BY-SA 3.0 license are different, there is no way Battlestar Wiki can accept that work legally. Aside from some of the policies we've copied from Wikipedia, which we've noted as being released under GFDL, everything else is released under the aforementioned CC license. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it is rather unfortunate that the original research policy, originally designed to keep crackpot claims from being treated as legitimate encyclopedic facts, is being used to remove material such as this. The "claims" being made by this article are verifiable by anyone who has viewed the two series. This is as much "original research" as saying "the sun is hot" is; and while there do seem to be people who would demand a citation for saying "the sun is hot" (and sure, such a citation could be found, but that's not the point), common sense should override the literal application of policy. That's why we have ignore all rules. The fact that license issues forbid us from transwiki-ing this to BSW only intensifies the arguement to keep, instead of allowing a good collaborative article like this to be wiped out in the collateral damage of hyperenforcement of policies, an inexplicable hatred of "fancruft", and incompatibilities of licenes. DHowell (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2007 (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.