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The result was Nomination withdrawn by nominator. — Edokter • Talk • 12:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No sources, no notability, no content other than plot. dorftrottel (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Episode of a notable TV series; no reason not to include listings for each episode. See List of Star Trek episodes, List of Family Guy episodes, etc. Needs some cleanup and rewriting, but that's a content problem. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ?? Are we looking at the same page? Sine Qua Non (Battlestar Galactica) is not an episode list, it's a plot summary for that one episode. I'm not at all opposed to List of Battlestar Galactica (reimagined series) episodes. The problem with this article is not a content issue, it's a non-content issue. dorftrottel (talk) 01:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Exactly. Perhaps I should have given you some other examples; I just wanted you to see that television episode articles are fairly regular practice. It's a plot summary of one episode, and that's exactly what consensus in practice represents with regards to this particular type of article. It needs some copyediting, wikification and an infobox, but the subject is perfectly encyclopedic, especially considering the five pillars. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(i) Your examples have at least some real-world context ('40th anniversary remastering'). (ii) There's also WP:NOT... dorftrottel (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. The episode has only aired in the UK at the moment and doesn't start airing in the US for about another ten minutes. Now it does like all the other season 4 episoade need an awful lot of cleanup. Jon (talk) 01:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing to clean up, really, except mainspace. dorftrottel (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. I agree that the article is a mess, but - as noted - the episode just aired, and the article is in a state of flux. I would strongly recomment waiting a week or two before nominating the article for deletion - and even then, there is no reason whatsoever why this article would not redirect to the article for the series, season, or what-have-you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's an inplausible search term. dorftrottel (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, whatever. Someone close this, please. dorftrottel (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove your deletion tag. Cyberia23 (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion tag is removed only after a debate is closed. That's why the tag says "this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." (original emphasis) dorftrottel (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2008 (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.