Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) locations


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagining) locations

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Consists entirely of plot details and fictional history; contains no assertion that the planets are notable outside of the series or franchise. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a list.  The various entries in the list are certainly notable - see here, for example.  The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The author Kevin Grazier was science advisor and intimately involved with BSG's production, so he's not really evidence of notability. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That means that he is an expert on the topic and so the source is a good one for our purposes. The publishers were John Wiley and Sons - a highly reputable publisher, not a vanity press, and so the publication is excellent evidence of notability. Warden (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean he's not a source, it means he cannot be used as evidence of notability (he's not secondary). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the primary sources in this case are the TV series, scripts and novelisations. This work is a secondary source because it analyses and studies the work rather than being part of it. Warden (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have clarified what I meant by secondary--I meant that he's not independent of the subject, thus he can't be used to satisfy notability since he's primarily involved in the subject itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is at least partially independent, because the other author (Patrick Di Justo) is independent of the work commented on. So this can partially support notability, considering the motivations for the independence clause. Also this is a secondary source, independence is stronger than being secondary. Cenarium (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 21:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —I, Jethrobot drop me a line 21:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Many of the items on this list were from articles that were deleted because they couldn't be written "out of universe". Are we declaring war on all fiction? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then why should they exist? They are not required for coverage of the notable aspects of the universe, and are not notable themselves. Writing things "out of universe" is a requirement of fictional coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Two reasons:
 * 1) I can't speak for the populace at large, but when I don't know something... I Google it. Invariably, Wikipedia is among the first 10 sites that comes up with data on just about anything. Heck, this list comes up as #5 with a search of "Joe's Bar BSG". So... unless Wikipedia is going to just delete all fiction articles because they lack real world aspects, this must stay. And they are legion, from List of Doctor Who planets to List of Digimon. I imagine (though I have not looked) that if we were to start purging lists list this we'd be in the four to five digit range in terms of numbers of articles.
 * 2) It's standard practice to take things that may not deserve their own articles and combine them into lists so they can at least be looked up. This happens a LOT with SF articles, and has been noted here Talk:List of Star Wars characters as well. Note that there are citations for many of the items on the list as well. I would also point out that this debate has happened before (and will happen again), but I'll cite the consenus of Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Star_Wars_creatures_(2nd_nomination): Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your arguments boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "it's useful", neither of which are based in any type of Wikipedia guideline or policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, not exactly: in 2) I have shown there is a consensus to not delete lists like this one (the Star Wars one (and many other pages if we want to go looking)). As for policy, there is DEL: Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear. That's pretty much what this list is, as there have been articles merged into it in the past such as Talk:New Caprica. The list ALSO contains links to articles which have been deemed notable, such as Kobol. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Parent topic is notable. LENGTH prevents covering these in the main article, so this is a legitimate WP:SS breakout that derives its notability from the main topic.  No objection to appropriate cleanup, but there are plenty of other, similar locations articles for notable TV shows that have lasted into multiple seasons, e.g. Locations in Veronica Mars. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Same reasons as Jclemens. --Philly boy92 (talk) 04:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If we are going to consider this article for deletion on the basis that it fictional, than there is a mountain of other articles that also need to be considered for deletion.--Uriel ramirez (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable and legitimate encyclopedic subject. The notability of the topic of locations in BSG comes partly from the fact that finding the location of Earth is a central plot theme, as acknowledged by various sources such as Battlestar Galactica and Philosophy By Josef Steiff, with all commentaries that follow. The subject of location in more abstract terms is also discussed: "there is no central location for narrative coherence", as well as how the fleet is forced to move from planet to planet in order to survive. This is also discussed in Battlestar Galactica: Investigating Flesh, Spirit, and Steel by Roz Kaveney, Jennifer Stoy as well as the 'companion' books such as Finding Battlestar Galactica: An Unauthorized Guide by Lynnette R. Porter, David Lavery, Hillary Robson. Most of the specific entries are discussed there, and not just in plot terms, also as part of the commentaries on the spiritual aspect of the series, in particular the quest for Earth, and as part of the survival theme. New Caprica has been discussed by several sources, particularly on the occupation theme, in Battlestar Galactica and philosophy: knowledge here begins out there, an entire essay is on this subject (p 114-); the parallel with the Iraq war has also been heavily discussed, such as in BG: Investigating Flesh, Spirit, and Steel (p 144-) and in various other sources, this is covered in the main article here. This not only shows that the subject as a topic is notable but that it is a legitimate encyclopedic subject due to its independently verified significance in a notable work of fiction and beyond that. Cenarium (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2011 (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.