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 delete. It will be recreated as a redirect to Battlestar. --Coredesat 05:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominated for speedy deletion as spam but doesn't meet that speedy criterion, IMO. AFDing to see consensus. No opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Meh...thought it might have been spam due to the RPG link at the bottom...unsure though. Anyway, still not notable. Gzkn 03:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - smells of fancruft too. Be aware that some of the 810 non-wiki ghits are about the Space Shuttle Columbia as per this Time article. MER-C 04:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fancruft. —ShadowHalo 06:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Individual items (weapons, vehicles etc.) from TV series, video games etc. are usually not notable. I don't see any reason why this one is an exception. Heimstern Läufer 07:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Battlestar. All relevant info already is there. Caknuck 08:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Caknuck. (The battlestar article contains more specific info on Columbia that this article, actually.) Quack 688 09:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Caknuck. A passing reference in the Miniseries is not enough to warrant a full, independent article.-- danntm ^T _C 15:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I guess, though a deletion might work just as well. TSO1D 15:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Fancruft. --Bryson 15:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable fancruft. -- IslaySolomon | talk 17:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for the record, it is verifiable - the issue at hand is that it's not notable enough. Quack 688 04:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into Battlestar, per Caknuck. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Battlestar. This is trivia, not notable enough for its own article. Doczilla 09:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A ship mentioned as destroyed in both versions isn't notable, and this page is clearly just badly written excuse to promote someone's RPG. Duggy 1138 13:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect delete it first, then recreate as a redirect to Battlestar. 132.205.93.16 00:07, 12 December 2006 (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.