Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpship (Battletech)

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 - No consensus -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jumpship (Battletech)

Jumpship (Battletech) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Lack of multiple non-trivial independent sources about Jumpships. Pure WP:CRUFT. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 20:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

not necessarily; also not really a suitable criteria for deletion.M.U.D. 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Main form of interstellar travel within the Battletech franchise. Article has minimal sources, primarily from one of the roleplaying books. Weak keep to avoid constant repetition and justification whenever a Jumpship is mentioned in another Battletech article. -- saberwyn 21:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I could not find anything that would make this article look encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge to BattleTech technology (itself barely notable, or possibly not so at all). cab 11:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jumpships appear to be discussed in that article already. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Jumpship (Battletech) at least has inline citations, whereas BattleTech technology has none as all; those cites would seem to be worth preserving, since someone went to the trouble of looking it up. cab 01:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Nothing but fancruft. Can't find any reliable sources and its just totally unencyclopedic material. Terence Ong 恭喜发财 14:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant to BattleTech technology. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as notable topic and verifiable article. Improvement over Battletech Technology M.U.D. 16:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. - Cruft. --Bryson 17:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable fictional entity, mentioned in about a 100 books, another 100 role-playing books, and several computer games. Plus dozens of webpages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm torn between Keep and Merge to BattleTech technology- this Jumpship page is notable (at least if discussion in published materials from at least 5 unrelated companies over 20 years earns an explanatory page); but the material is better suited to the Technology page.Skiltao 05:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The technology should be a glossary (with description) of non-notable terms. I believe jumpship is notable enough to deserve its own page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As a wargamer, I'm biased, but jumpships do play a crucial, if sometimes unsung, role in the Battletech universe. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:08, 19 February 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.