Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)


 * 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   speedy keep. WP:POINT nomination, as admitted by the nom. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Multiple editors are actively engaged in keeping real-world information out of the article, leaving only a plot summary. Since that is not enough to sustain an article, I am nominating ot for deletion. I will witdraw if article is allowed to contain the real-world context it deserves. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Your nomination seems immature and isn't a valid reason to delete. It sounds like "Do thing my way or else".   D r e a m Focus  14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is pointy. But the fact remains that if that information is left out, all that is left is the plot. That's the point I'm trying to get accross. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to consider reading WP:POINT. I think it explains why some editors will not take this AFD seriously, and believe it was made in bad faith. Thanks. --Banana (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This post implies that this article wasn't nominated in good faith. One should not respond to disruption by being disruptive.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy keep. Nominator does not cite any problem with the article subject, only other editors' behaviour.  The behaviour of other editors is not a valid reason for deletion.  Neither is the current state of the article, as we are required to consider whether it could become an acceptable article later during its development, and nominator basically admits that information he has tried to add to it will allow it to become acceptable. JulesH (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy keep as per JulesH. Deletion is not a solution to editorial disagreement, any more than euthanasia is to a medical difference of opinion between two dentists over a patient--Moloch09 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per JulesH and Moloch09. Please try and work with other editors to determine what information should go into the article. Thanks--Banana (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * keep: I do not think it is good policy to delete articles due to some kind of edit war. The submitter admits that there is "real-world information" (regardless if it is kept out) to support the article; so by all admissions the article is notable. I think User:Edokter acted in good faith, this policy is not clear, i.e. not set out at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - per JulesH. No real reason for deletion has been given. Content disputes need to be worked out elsewhere. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:49, 30 March 2009 (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.