Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlestar Pegasus

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 of the debate was Keep (5k, 2d, 1m), with a bunch of sock-puppet votes discounted.--Scimitar ^parley 18:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Pegasus

As much as I love the series, do we really need to have a page on here about the ship? We already have pages for every single ship that ever appeared for more then two frames of film in Star Trek or Star Wars, are we going to have pages for every single ship that ever appeared in Galactica too? Non-notable. AlistairMcMillan 18:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. - AlistairMcMillan 18:36, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom to avoid Battlestar proliferation. --MacRusgail 19:03, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere per WP:FICT — List of Battlestars or Ships in Battlestar Galactica would be good candidates. Kirill Lokshin 21:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Sorry, but the precedent has been established. But keep only if the Pegasus appears in more than one episode. I don't support articles for single-appearance ships (different incarnations of the Enterprise notwithstanding). 23skidoo 23:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So once a bad decision is made we have to repeat it forever? We already have a constant struggle to keep unverifiable information out of the Star Trek pages. Do we really need to invite this on Galactica pages too? Especially when the producers have made clear they are going to learn from Trek and avoid technobabble as much as possible, which means there isn't going to be much information to fill a page on Galactica's ships. AlistairMcMillan 23:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Per my note below, in the BSG universe, the only other Battlestar to survive was the Pegasus. Unlike Star Trek, you are simply not going to see any other Battlestars appear except in dialogue. Further, unlike Star Trek, the shows have developed four (4) episodes where the Pegasus is the central element. As the only other Battlestar to survive the Cylons, this vessel is highly notable and the entry should be kept. Jtmichcock 06:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Comment a Google of this shows over 1,000,000 hits. If that isn't notable, I don't know what is. Jtmichcock 06:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean <bold>15,500</bold>. Nowhere even close to 1,000,000. AlistairMcMillan 05:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as the Battlestar Galactica lore, in contrast to Star Trek, only meets ONE other named ship -- the Pegasus, the only other Battlestar to survive the Cylon attack. Jtmichcock 05:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we won't create pages on Battlestars that are seen in flashbacks? AlistairMcMillan 13:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Battlestars that are featured in flashbacks are certainly not notable enough for a separate listing. Only two from the canon survived the Cylons: Galactica (which I don't believe anyone could argue should be deleted) and Pegasus, the topic under debate. Two, and only two, survived.
      • Only two are know to have survived so far. If the series lasts seven years who knows what the producers will come up with. The Galactica page should probably be deleted too, it is already full of content that is unverifiable. AlistairMcMillan 17:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So, you are going to put an AfD on the entry for Battlestar Galactica? I think that says enough. Jtmichcock 20:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry it was the Battlestar page I was thinking of. Not a single source and tons of information that looks like original research... "42 fighters were visualy (sic) confirmed". AlistairMcMillan 20:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. 68.20.121.246 18:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC) (sorry, was not logged in) 18:06, 24 October 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Dansbury (talk • contribs) [reply]
• Strong Keep given that there are only two surviving battlestars, the historical (old series) significance of the ship, and the story arc involving a major plotline. 70.178.99.248 23:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Because not EVERY ship in the series/fleet is to be listed, only those that are actually featured or named, and there are hundreds in the surviving fleet, this entry should be kept. SmokeyBehr
• Strong KEEP. I fail to understand why anyone would make the argument "there is too much information here," let alone why anyone would buy into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.46.148 (talk • contribs)
• Keep, as the precedent has been established. Carioca 04:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per precedent and significant appearence in two series. If there were a big movement to rearrange ships from star trek, this might go with it, but I don't think that'll happen. -- SCZenz 01:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per other keep votes. Caerwine 19:13, 27 October 2005 (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.