Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball sport (Battlestar Galactica)

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ball sport (Battlestar Galactica)[edit]

Unreferenced piece of original research about a fictional ball game that appeared in a few episodes of a TV show. Appears to be few useful sources available. Note that this is not the card game which also appears under the names Triad and Pyramid and has an article at Pyramid_(card_game). Black Kite 13:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, hard to follow. TopGearFreak 14:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep or merge. This is related to the card game (see the article). There are also a few references to this game. [1], [2]. Article is in horrible shape, but this might be recoverable. Hobit (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also Battlestar Galactica: The Official Magazine, issue 1, pp. 28-29 apparently has an article on this. While primary, I'm happy to remove the weak part. It certainly needs a rename though (triad or pyramid). I'd suggest merging the two topics actually. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica sports? Possible. There are far more sources on the card game than there are on this (which is why I didn't nom it). Black Kite 15:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced plot summary for non-notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is not a hopeless case, as indicated by Hobit, and deletion is therefore not appropriate. See policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hobit and Colonen Warden. -- MISTER ALCOHOL ^T ^C 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Unreferenced to reliable secondary sources, consisting solely of plot and bearing no evidence of meeting the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is nothing sourced to merge, and the article title is too bad to serve as a search term. Sentences like "Since the rules aren't given", "seems to have been more thought out as a sport than it was in the original show" and "Ronald Moore said at a convention" imply that there's a lot of original research/synthesis and unverifiability besides the plot summary, all of which are a very poor reason to have the article. I am not convinced that the sources from above are anything but trivial plot summaries, but I encourage others to prove me wrong. No reservation against article recreation if properly written, although it maybe wiser to add found information to a parent article and wait for SPINOUT potential. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:32, 4 January 2009 (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.