Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow battlecrab

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. Consensus favors deletion over retention of the content. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow battlecrab[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Babylon 5 through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of fictional spacecraft or create Universe of Babylon 5, a dumping ground for all this B5 fancruft. Not independently notable. Deletion is also acceptable, but I suggest creating a catch-all article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge There are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with Shadow (Babylon 5). Warden (talk) 11:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unreferenced, including the name. I'm not even sure most of this can be referenced to RS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ES &L 12:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hate to relist this - but we need to have some form of consensus as to where to merge it to ES &L 12:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources establish notability. There is no appropriate merger target since there is no sourced information to merge. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2013 (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.