Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FTL (Battlestar Galactica)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Majorly (hot!) 21:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] FTL (Battlestar Galactica)
Original research. The article itself says: "The exact nature of the FTL drives remains unexplained in the show; what information exists has been extrapolated from on-screen dialogue". Also, no coverage of this topic in immediately apparent reliable sources, and we are not a TV guide. I understand there is a Battlestar Galactica Wiki better suited to this sort of content. Sandstein 22:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The article contains multiple references. The article contains real-world analysis. The nominator states "Original research. The article itself says: 'The exact nature of the FTL drives remains unexplained in the show; what information exists has been extrapolated from on-screen dialogue'", clearly that means: "Exactly how the FTL drive takes your from a to b is not known, the information that is known is stated here", though I expect it already knew this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, popular culture is perfectly notable/encyclopaedia as per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) and WP:NOT#PAPER. Matthew 23:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- The references are to the show's episodes. The information contained in the article is not "known", because it is not attributable to a reliable source. Editors interpolating information from TV show episodes is original research (it would have been different if, say, someone had written that info up in a book). Sandstein 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Primary references are perfectly acceptable ("Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." -- WP:NOR, the article is inline with that paragraph.) - Listen, I understand it must hurt to be proven wrong time and again.. but that's no reason to give false reasons/make stuff up :-( -- nowhere do I see any interpretation nor anything saying primary sources are outlawed. Matthew 06:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not object to primary sources being used. However, I object to information being interpolated from them; this - as the policy you cite says - requires a secondary source. An appropriate primary source here would be a sequence of some character in the show lecturing on FTL drive physics. Making guesses based on incidences of FTL tech being used in the show is not, however, an acceptable use of primary sources. As with Cyberia23 below, I most strongly suggest you refrain from assuming bad faith and making personal attacks. Sandstein 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith that I did not assume bad faith. Please could you present some text where you believe information has been "interpolated" also I'd request you show where there are guesses? You've not presented any of this. Matthew 07:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I do not object to primary sources being used. However, I object to information being interpolated from them; this - as the policy you cite says - requires a secondary source. An appropriate primary source here would be a sequence of some character in the show lecturing on FTL drive physics. Making guesses based on incidences of FTL tech being used in the show is not, however, an acceptable use of primary sources. As with Cyberia23 below, I most strongly suggest you refrain from assuming bad faith and making personal attacks. Sandstein 07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Primary references are perfectly acceptable ("Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation being written about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is a primary source. United Nations Security Council resolutions are primary sources. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." -- WP:NOR, the article is inline with that paragraph.) - Listen, I understand it must hurt to be proven wrong time and again.. but that's no reason to give false reasons/make stuff up :-( -- nowhere do I see any interpretation nor anything saying primary sources are outlawed. Matthew 06:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The references are to the show's episodes. The information contained in the article is not "known", because it is not attributable to a reliable source. Editors interpolating information from TV show episodes is original research (it would have been different if, say, someone had written that info up in a book). Sandstein 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Pop culture reference and the show is very popular. Perhaps it can become part of a bigger article on Battlestar Galactica technology. For the record, Battlestar Wiki isn't very reliable - there is more fancruft and far more "original research" there than here and their site is terribly slow and off-line quite often especially as the show airs. Cyberia23 23:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
- Popularity is not notability. Notability requires substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The show itself fits that criterion, its fictional FTL technology does not. The unreliability of another site is not a reason to keep this article. Sandstein 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, not everything works around here based solely on YOUR opinion Sandstein - I know you admins have trouble believing that - but you brought up Battlestar Wiki and I told you why it sucks. Cyberia23 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- That site may well suck, but we are not its mirror. You will please remain civil when participating in discussions. Sandstein 05:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I never said we were a mirror of Battlestar Wiki, and I'm remaining perfectly civil. You're just another deletionist and if your going to threaten articles at random because you don't like them then you have to expect to open up a can of worms with those who participated in creating it. Goes with the process. Cyberia23 18:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- WP:NOT#PAPER - Also I'd request you also remain civil, you are being very rude. Matthew 06:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Let's all calm down here a little. To my eyes, Sandstein hasn't said one rude thing throughout this entire discussion. It's very easy to misconstrue disagreement as a personal attack, especially on a subject one is passionate about. --Fru1tbat 11:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- That site may well suck, but we are not its mirror. You will please remain civil when participating in discussions. Sandstein 05:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, not everything works around here based solely on YOUR opinion Sandstein - I know you admins have trouble believing that - but you brought up Battlestar Wiki and I told you why it sucks. Cyberia23 05:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Popularity is not notability. Notability requires substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. The show itself fits that criterion, its fictional FTL technology does not. The unreliability of another site is not a reason to keep this article. Sandstein 04:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Were it not for the above-mentioned line regarding extrapolation from the show's dialog, this article would be perfectly viable. It requires editing, not deletion. --BlueSquadronRaven 07:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — If anything, the erroneous statement the one in which the article claims to be extrapolation from observed or published facts. The article is a collation of such facts, and that is precisely what an encylopaedic article should do: pull together facts from disparate sources into a cogent and readable whole. Sullivan.t.j 18:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Citing episodes from the series where observations are taken and synthesised to derive information about the characteristics of the drive. That is very much original reearch. -- Whpq 22:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Without real world significance that is specific to the series, the article cannot be more than plot summary and original research. Jay32183 22:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Taking your statement at face value, Jay32183, one could say the same of all the articles on the characters in Battlestar Galactica, or any other fictional series: they have no real-world relevance except to provide plot summary and hint at what the actor/actress in question has been doing for a living. Sullivan.t.j 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's correct. Artciles on fictional topics are required to have real world context. This may mean that many articles have been created that never should have been, but that's no reason to keep this one. Jay32183 01:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that "many" might be a great understatement. A rigorous enforcement of the policy that you seem to be suggesting would lay waste to large tracts of Wikipedia dealing with fictional topics, which would be a gross over-reaction. I would also like to point out that the criterion for inclusion at WP:NOT#IINFO and repeated out of context on WP:Notability (fiction), clearly pertains to plot summaries, which the article in question is not even attempting to be. The sensible criterion for a "background" article like this one, or — to take the first article that comes to my mind from another realm of fiction — Narsil, is whether or not it contributes to a reader's understanding of the Battlestar Galactica/The Lord of the Rings universe. I suggest that if such considerations aren't part of the notability debate now, they should be, and articles like this one deserve a stay of execution pending such policy-level discussion. Sullivan.t.j 04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- An article about a fictional work with no real world context is a plot summary. The fact that this plot summary is highly specialized is not relevant. There is no real world context, there needs to be. Without reliable sources to provide real world context the article should be deleted. Jay32183 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, I do not agree with the proposition that "[a]n article about a fictional work with no real world context is a plot summary". Would you please provide an argument in support of it? Secondly, I do not agree that real-world context is the sole criterion by which Wikipedia articles about fictional subjects are judged: the survival of hundreds (if not thousands) of articles about fictional characters, places, objects and technologies testifies to the fact that such articles are de facto, if not de jure, notable. While your commitment to the letter of the law is notable, I think that you would do well to consider the extent of the opposition that you would likely face in trying to thoroughly implement what you (implicity) propose, and how that would run against the spirit of Wikipedia. Sullivan.t.j 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you do not present an argument about the notability of this subject, but rather there are a lot of articles that are not notable enough to be included. With no real world context the article is just plot summary because all of the information comes straight from the plot. If the article is not just plot summary with no real world context, then there is even more reason to delete it, because it contains original research. What I am suggesting does not run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan guide. This isn't an "I don't like it" argument, if there were reliable sources for real world context used to expand the article then the article should be kept. Stargate (device) has real world context, so I would not claim that it should be deleted. Jay32183 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, in what sense does Stargate (device) have "real world context"? The wormhole physics of the Stargate is just as speculative as the physics of the warp drive in Star Trek or the FTL/jump drive of Battlestar Galactica. Or are you referring to the section on the actual Stargate prop? If this is the kind of "real-world context" that you wish to see, it should be an easy matter for you to be bold add it — in keeping with the Wikipedian spirit of "improve, not delete". Secondly, you are correct to point out that I have defended the notability of this article largely by comparison with other articles on similar topics. A less comparative justification for its notability is that faster-than-light travel is a topic of interest, and that at this stage in human history any discussion of FTL travel is necessarily either fictional or speculative — but not necessarily un-interesting, especially when it provides background to a television series of current popular interest. I am not yet convinced by your case that this article is somehow especially poor, nor have I seen evidence that you actually intend to pursue your programme of deleting non-notable articles on fictional technologies, or fictional subjects more generally. Do you really intend to nominate for deletion all articles meeting your criteria? Sullivan.t.j 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The real world context is the discussion of the writing process. With Star Gate and Star Trek there are reliable sources for what the writers were basing the fictional concept on, this article does not contain that. You still have not defended the notability of the subject of this article. Discussing the notability of related things is not the same as asserting notability. This article makes no assertion of real world notability. No discussion of development, no critique from reliable television or sci-fi critics, no discussion on imapct of culture. There isn't even any eveidence that there are reliable third-party sources, which is the determining factor in deciding notability on Wikipedia. To remind you again, the fact that other articles should be deleted and are not being discussed for deletion is not a reason to keep. Look at this article by itself. The fact that the article presents no real world context and asserts no notability from reliable third-party sources is a reason to delete. Jay32183 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- In response to the last sentence of your reply: no! It's a reason to improve, not delete. Even if I were to accept the rest of your position, I would still stick to the ethic that, on Wikipedia, improvement is preferable to deletion. Your responses read like those of someone with precisely the opposite opinion. Sullivan.t.j 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- If no one makes the effort to improve the article over the course of the AFD then deletion is the best option. Chances are, the sources you need don't exist. Improve is not always an option. If this is the best the article can be, based on reliable sources, then the article should be deleted. You have not once presented a sound argument to keep, because you've presented no evidence that the article can be improved. I maintain that my final statement is reason to delete, not reason to improve, because there's no evidence that improvement is possible. Jay32183 22:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article doesn't even need improvement. It's a well written, out of universe article that covers a subject that spans decades and a number of television series and min-series. - Peregrine Fisher 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article asserts no real world significance, so it would need improvement. It can't be improved so it should be deleted. Jay32183 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I invite you to submit for deletion every single article that meets your definition of "no real-world significance" (e.g. every article about every fictional character) and observe the response that you get. You would quickly realize that real-world significance is not the only criterion by which the merits of articles about fictional subjects are judged. An additional criterion is significance to the fictional universe in question, provided that it is referenced and not written in an in-universe style. This is what you don't seem to see/agree with: notability applies in different ways to fictional subject matter versus factual subject matter. Sullivan.t.j 01:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article asserts no real world significance, so it would need improvement. It can't be improved so it should be deleted. Jay32183 23:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- This article doesn't even need improvement. It's a well written, out of universe article that covers a subject that spans decades and a number of television series and min-series. - Peregrine Fisher 23:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- If no one makes the effort to improve the article over the course of the AFD then deletion is the best option. Chances are, the sources you need don't exist. Improve is not always an option. If this is the best the article can be, based on reliable sources, then the article should be deleted. You have not once presented a sound argument to keep, because you've presented no evidence that the article can be improved. I maintain that my final statement is reason to delete, not reason to improve, because there's no evidence that improvement is possible. Jay32183 22:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- In response to the last sentence of your reply: no! It's a reason to improve, not delete. Even if I were to accept the rest of your position, I would still stick to the ethic that, on Wikipedia, improvement is preferable to deletion. Your responses read like those of someone with precisely the opposite opinion. Sullivan.t.j 20:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The real world context is the discussion of the writing process. With Star Gate and Star Trek there are reliable sources for what the writers were basing the fictional concept on, this article does not contain that. You still have not defended the notability of the subject of this article. Discussing the notability of related things is not the same as asserting notability. This article makes no assertion of real world notability. No discussion of development, no critique from reliable television or sci-fi critics, no discussion on imapct of culture. There isn't even any eveidence that there are reliable third-party sources, which is the determining factor in deciding notability on Wikipedia. To remind you again, the fact that other articles should be deleted and are not being discussed for deletion is not a reason to keep. Look at this article by itself. The fact that the article presents no real world context and asserts no notability from reliable third-party sources is a reason to delete. Jay32183 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- First, in what sense does Stargate (device) have "real world context"? The wormhole physics of the Stargate is just as speculative as the physics of the warp drive in Star Trek or the FTL/jump drive of Battlestar Galactica. Or are you referring to the section on the actual Stargate prop? If this is the kind of "real-world context" that you wish to see, it should be an easy matter for you to be bold add it — in keeping with the Wikipedian spirit of "improve, not delete". Secondly, you are correct to point out that I have defended the notability of this article largely by comparison with other articles on similar topics. A less comparative justification for its notability is that faster-than-light travel is a topic of interest, and that at this stage in human history any discussion of FTL travel is necessarily either fictional or speculative — but not necessarily un-interesting, especially when it provides background to a television series of current popular interest. I am not yet convinced by your case that this article is somehow especially poor, nor have I seen evidence that you actually intend to pursue your programme of deleting non-notable articles on fictional technologies, or fictional subjects more generally. Do you really intend to nominate for deletion all articles meeting your criteria? Sullivan.t.j 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you do not present an argument about the notability of this subject, but rather there are a lot of articles that are not notable enough to be included. With no real world context the article is just plot summary because all of the information comes straight from the plot. If the article is not just plot summary with no real world context, then there is even more reason to delete it, because it contains original research. What I am suggesting does not run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan guide. This isn't an "I don't like it" argument, if there were reliable sources for real world context used to expand the article then the article should be kept. Stargate (device) has real world context, so I would not claim that it should be deleted. Jay32183 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- First, I do not agree with the proposition that "[a]n article about a fictional work with no real world context is a plot summary". Would you please provide an argument in support of it? Secondly, I do not agree that real-world context is the sole criterion by which Wikipedia articles about fictional subjects are judged: the survival of hundreds (if not thousands) of articles about fictional characters, places, objects and technologies testifies to the fact that such articles are de facto, if not de jure, notable. While your commitment to the letter of the law is notable, I think that you would do well to consider the extent of the opposition that you would likely face in trying to thoroughly implement what you (implicity) propose, and how that would run against the spirit of Wikipedia. Sullivan.t.j 05:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- An article about a fictional work with no real world context is a plot summary. The fact that this plot summary is highly specialized is not relevant. There is no real world context, there needs to be. Without reliable sources to provide real world context the article should be deleted. Jay32183 04:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think that "many" might be a great understatement. A rigorous enforcement of the policy that you seem to be suggesting would lay waste to large tracts of Wikipedia dealing with fictional topics, which would be a gross over-reaction. I would also like to point out that the criterion for inclusion at WP:NOT#IINFO and repeated out of context on WP:Notability (fiction), clearly pertains to plot summaries, which the article in question is not even attempting to be. The sensible criterion for a "background" article like this one, or — to take the first article that comes to my mind from another realm of fiction — Narsil, is whether or not it contributes to a reader's understanding of the Battlestar Galactica/The Lord of the Rings universe. I suggest that if such considerations aren't part of the notability debate now, they should be, and articles like this one deserve a stay of execution pending such policy-level discussion. Sullivan.t.j 04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's correct. Artciles on fictional topics are required to have real world context. This may mean that many articles have been created that never should have been, but that's no reason to keep this one. Jay32183 01:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Taking your statement at face value, Jay32183, one could say the same of all the articles on the characters in Battlestar Galactica, or any other fictional series: they have no real-world relevance except to provide plot summary and hint at what the actor/actress in question has been doing for a living. Sullivan.t.j 01:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- (de-indent) You are very wrong on that. There are articles on fictional characters to be featured because they include real world context. Link (The Legend of Zelda), Padme Amidala, and Palpatine all have real world significance included in the article. In-universe significance is completely irrelevant for inclusion on Wikipedia. Jay32183 02:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - This isn't the only Faster-than-Light page shown for a specific universe. Check 'Category:Faster-than-light travel in fiction'. Babylon 5, Outlaw Star, "The History of the Galaxy;" all these and others have a page of their own on FTL travel, and none of those are being considered for deletion.Ye Olde Luke 23:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that other pages should be deleted and aren't being discussed is not a reason to keep. We can do things one at a time to make sure things get done. Jay32183 00:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Good start at referencing. If we ever want a good page on this subject, this is the start. Pers: WP:NOT#PAPER, WP:SS. - Peregrine Fisher 07:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Seriously, articles like this should fit in battlestar wiki. There is absolutely no need to analyze in such detail an average sci-fi show like this one. Plus, the article has a strong tendency towards original research, despite the author's claims.--Kamikaze 10:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, just because a more specific wiki exists is an extremely poor rationale for purging content from WP. In fact, I'd say it's not even a valid rationale in any sense. An article on the FTL drive doesn't make WP a tv guide (sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me). Finally re: OR. Citing episodes is not original research.; it's citing a primary source. Cburnett 18:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Extrapolating upon information revealed in the episodes is nothing more than original research.--Kamikaze 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interpreting is OR, stating facts within an episode is not. See WP:NOR, or better yet I'll quote! ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.") Feel free to show me where there is any interpretation. Matthew 19:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article is full of "implies", "appears", "it is not clear". And as example for interpretation take "the dialogue implies that...". It doesn't "state".--Kamikaze 09:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The uses of "appears" (3 in all) seem to me to be entirely correct in describing that which is observed to be the case. For example, the idea of "apparent time" in FTL travel is one that one would wish to consider in view of general relativity. (I agree that, in English, "appears" as opposed to "is" connotes some uncertainty, but it has the advantage of almost automatically avoiding in-universe style issues, and insulates against revelations in future episodes.) "Implies" occurs only once in the entire article; I agree that it should be rephrased to reflect that this is only in view of the phrase to "spin up" an FTL drive. "It is not clear" also appears just once in the article, and is a perfectly valid statement of in-universe physics yet to be revealed. Five occurrences in toto do not make the article "full" of the phrases, Kamikaze. You have a point that the language can and should be improved, but please do not exaggerate the extent of the problem. Sullivan.t.j 16:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- P.S. It occurs to me that such seemingly vague language is characteristic of Wikipedians who wish to stick to reporting the truth without extrapolation; such a person would say that of house-like shape seen on a hill in the distance that there appears to be a house on the hill, not that there is. This may seem annoyingly vague or pedantic to some, but is straightforward truth-telling to others. In the case of television shows and films replete with special effects and storytelling sleight-of-hand, "appears" is the more cautious and correct approach. Sullivan.t.j 16:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly.--Kamikaze 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Would you care to elaborate on why you think that a fair witness approach is "hardly" appropriate to Wikipedia? (I'm not promoting it as the only style that we should use, just saying that it is valid.) Sullivan.t.j 16:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is utterly futile. I was merely pointing that the large amount of dubitative wordings indicate the article's tendency towards interpretation et ipso facto OR.--Kamikaze 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I was merely pointing out that five (the number of times such "dubitative wordings" appear) is not a large number, and that some of those five instances are entirely justifiable and do not necessarily constitute OR, the case in point being apparent passage of time. Sullivan.t.j 17:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is ultimately useless to cling on to the dubitative wording issue which you have failed to thoroughly comprehend it. Those five words were merely examples, not the sole occurences of questionable writing meant for masking original research.--Kamikaze 14:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- And I was merely pointing out that five (the number of times such "dubitative wordings" appear) is not a large number, and that some of those five instances are entirely justifiable and do not necessarily constitute OR, the case in point being apparent passage of time. Sullivan.t.j 17:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is utterly futile. I was merely pointing that the large amount of dubitative wordings indicate the article's tendency towards interpretation et ipso facto OR.--Kamikaze 17:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Would you care to elaborate on why you think that a fair witness approach is "hardly" appropriate to Wikipedia? (I'm not promoting it as the only style that we should use, just saying that it is valid.) Sullivan.t.j 16:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hardly.--Kamikaze 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- The article is full of "implies", "appears", "it is not clear". And as example for interpretation take "the dialogue implies that...". It doesn't "state".--Kamikaze 09:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Interpreting is OR, stating facts within an episode is not. See WP:NOR, or better yet I'll quote! ("Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.") Feel free to show me where there is any interpretation. Matthew 19:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Extrapolating upon information revealed in the episodes is nothing more than original research.--Kamikaze 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - this would make an outstanding article in a fanzine, and I suggest that the authors userfy it for that purpose. However, it is an exercise in original research. Metamagician3000 11:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as per MatthewIllyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 16:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Valid subject, valid sub-article of the main thing, and there are a number of magazines and sites that are independent of the subject to expand further. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I am not a fan of the show, but based on a quick look around the internet, the term FTL does seem to be commonly-used by the fan community. A Google search brought up 38,400 hits.[1] It's also well-known enough that the term FTL appears on the SciFi.com Battlestar Galactica glossary.[2] As such, the concept appears notable enough to deserve an article. --Elonka 00:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I actually don't see any OR. The article reads like a list of data about FTL provided by the show. There is no original synthesis nor do I see them drawing conclusions (outside the obvious). jbolden1517Talk 01:09, 23 April 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.
