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)[reply]

Jumpship (Battletech)[edit]

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

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

not necessarily; also not really a suitable criteria for deletion.M.U.D. 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find anything that would make this article look encyclopedic. — Nearly Headless Nick 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 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)[reply]
Merge to BattleTech technology (itself barely notable, or possibly not so at all). cab 11:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpships appear to be discussed in that article already. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.