Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel T. Anders

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. Each article should be nominated and evaluated individually. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel T. Anders[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

None of these appears notable as characters. Fails WP:GNG, relies too heavily on plot summaries and not on demonstrating character's notability Cylon B (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Merge the informations from the nominated articles into List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All as once again the nominator has managed to mass-nominate clearly notable fictional elements (each 'find sources' book link leads to at least two independent, non-trivial RS's. Each of them!) in what can most charitably be described as a misguided attempt to use deletion as cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Ellen Tigh as there are plenty of reliable sources to be found through a simple google search, especially when you search for information about this character through the search term "fifth cylon" and other variants. There is more than enough information to support the character having her own page, and the poor condition of the actual article should not be used as grounds for merge and/or delete. I am not certain about the other ones as much, but I am not a fan of the mass-nomination strategy, especially since there are several mass-nominations open right now in AFD on BSG-related articles. I would have advised waiting for one of them to close before opening multiple new ones. Either way, I still believe the page for Ellen Tigh should be kept at the very least. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion, as these mass nominations are not helpful. These characters may or may not meet the GNG, but I think individual attention is warranted. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2017 (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.