Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cylon Raider (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Cylon (Battlestar Galactica). Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 08:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cylon Raider[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:GNG. Primary sources, description only. No indication of real world significance (through I am sure one could find a toy model or such with an accompanying press release or a blog review...). BEFORE fails to find any source that is not primary or in-passing. The three sources presented in the AfD 5 years ago (that nobody bothered to add to the article) are: mention in passing, one sentence long, that apparently someone build a big model and the two other links are broken now, but I think the second is a caption under a photo of the ship saying effectively it can be seen in the show and for the third one, if this is the working mirror, it seems like someone's three paragraph long blog post. The editors who tried to pass those as sufficient sources or who didn't bother to look at them should be promptly WP:TROUTed... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "three paragraph long blog-post" is a post on the AMC blog (that is the blog of the television channel) by John Brownlee, a journalist/reviewer apparently active in the field of sci-fi. This doesn't appear to be the self-published work that the nom is implying but probably isn't WP:SIGCOV as only one the paras is actually talking about the subject.

In terms of what I found in my WP:BEFORE, this reference is sigcov and appears to be a reliable source - it summarises the role of the Raider in the fictional world of BSG. Cinefex - Issues 104-107 - Page 71 appears to contain a description of the creation of the props for the raider, however this is only available in snippet saying "Enigma designed the Cylon Raider fighter as a pointed boomerang with a glowing red window slot at its apex. Production constructed a full-scale Raider prop for Season One, revealing the interior as a dripping mass of biomechanical innards.". This book, also from reputable publisher, appears to include a description of the origins of the Cylon Raider's design, unfortunately also only visible in snippet. However, there's also this detailed description of an auctioned model of the original Cylon Raider in what appears to be a WP:NEWSORG. There's also an extensive review of the model-kit for the Cylon Raider here in what appears to be a WP:NEWSORG - the model is an adaptation of the original work and as such coverage of it is coverage of the original work. Passes WP:GNG based on at least the Cylons In America, New Atlas, and FineScale Modeler Magazine references with a side-order of likely WP:SIGCOV in the So Say We All and Cinefex coverage . FOARP (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - It seems the Cylon Raider is also part of the Victoria & Albert's Museum of Childhood collection, but I'm not sure how much weight to place on that. FOARP (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Cylons In Americ book dedicates one paragraph (on. p. 95) and few mentions in passing to the Raider; and I don't see anything that goes beyond primary description of this plot device ("CR is a biomechanical ship..." etc.). I don't think that the News Atlas is a major news outlet, hardly better than a blog, and a paragraph discussing how the movie prop goes on sale is hardly significant coverage of the topic, neither is a model review in a niche model-focused blog/trade publication. You did a pretty good job finding this, but in the end all we have is a paragraph in book that can be used to replace PRIMARY sources for some fictional description, and WP:ONEEVENT-like niche publications about the movie prop being sold and a model being released. Sorry, this still doesn't seem like a topic for encyclopedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Atlas is a clear WP:NEWSORG pass as they have an editorial team and editorial policy (linked above), the paragraph discusses the topic in detail. Same goes for Cylons in America. WP:ONEEVENT is a guide for WP:BLP articles so I have no idea why you are referencing it here (is the Cylon Raider a living person?) - it's purpose is to make the article about the event rather than the person involved so it's not even a stand-alone WP:DELREASON. The modelling magazine is not a blog or trade publication (and it being a trade publication would only matter if this was an article about a company because that's a WP:CORP guide - its purpose is to stop companies manufacturing notability for themselves) and is clearly WP:SIGCOV. So, in the end, if you ignore all the references sustaining notability then you may conclude that a subject is not notable, but this is not what we do here at AFD. FOARP (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - also Cf. coverage in the following WP:NEWSORG articles: 1 2 3 FOARP (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the paragraph discusses the topic in detail". Here's a big problem. In-depth discussion is generally hard to find in a paragraph. Paragraph may be better than a single sentence, but overall is rarely sufficient to meet in-depth requirement. If something is discussed only in a paragraph, it is probably not notable. And so far all the sources we have here are just this - paragraph (at best, sentence in some cases) mentions of the topic in more general overviews of the BG fanchise. Like your first extra links, 15 ships from BG. Sure, every gets a sentence or two - but that's not enough to make any of them notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the page-length article? FOARP (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine... if you want to make article about the model. Only semi-related to the article about the fictional plot device. WP:NOTINHERITED: a review of a toy is not a great source for establishing notability of whatever the toy is based on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's an adaptation of the original work - similar to a film made from a book, or a translation into another language or so-forth - this is very obviously not a situation where we're talking about inherited notability because that's where you assume notability of a small element in a larger, more notable work (unless you think the model is the larger work?). Saying its "semi-related" means its related, which it obviously is as its a direct representation of the subject. FOARP (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - oddly GBooks allows you to see different part of a book depending on where you're logging in from so, logging in from a different computer, I've just noticed that So Say We All: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Battlestar Galactica also gives WP:SIGCOV to the development of the Cylon Raider design - note that this coverage is in the (small-font) author-written sections and not only in the interview section, although the interviewees do also provide an extensive discussion of the design of the raider. FOARP (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cylon (Battlestar Galactica). Not independently notable per nom, only in the context of the Cylons._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 03:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Most of the above sources are trivial mentions. Toy reviews are in no way a sign of notability on a topic unless that review is in some way special, the toy in particular being reviewed for some special reason. Otherwise, it's just one of many cookie cutter reviews on that site, which shows that review has no weight. Production information is good, but it should be placed into the main article if there is no other real world context on which to build an article. TTN (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Cylon (Battlestar Galactica) per Zxcvbnm.4meter4 (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2019 (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.