Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoe Graystone

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Graystone[edit]

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

Delete. Fictional character with no evidence or assertion of notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Caprica characters with the other NN characters of this TV series, that have articles. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fact that character is the first cylon is notable. --Magicus69 17:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Fansih enthusiasm is not a reason to have an article; neither is a portrayal by a young actress in a nightie. Jack Merridew 21:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to obvious and undeniable evidence and assertion of notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to redlink an article. Indeed, no actual reason exists for deletion. This article, created a mere few days ago, is easily improveable per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, Wikipedia:Give an article a chance, and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, which I started to do by use of Google News, where we find dozens of relevant hits (over 50) and even more interviews and reveiews for further expanding the development and reception sections exist on a regular Google Search that are not snagged by Google News, but that are nevertheless still on reliable secondary sources. I used only a couple of the many sources available and a better writer than I could assuredly improve those sections using the dozens of additional sources with relative ease. The character is notable by a practical or common sense standard: she figures on a well advertised show on a familiar basic cable network watched by millions of people as a main and recurring character who is essential in the mythology of one of the top ten or so most significant science fiction space franchises (Battlestar Galactica) of all time (she is the first of what becomes the chief villains, i.e. the Cylons, in a several years old franchise marketed in television, DVD movies, games, etc.). She is consistent with what Wikipedia is and is notable. Now, it is not just notable by logical standards or fun standards, but even by objective interpretations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Foremost, this character receives clear and unquestionable significant coverage in litterally dozens of reliable sources that verify the character's development, plot progression, and reception in numerous interviews, previews, and reviews that devote more than just a sentence or two each to this particularly important character. As the content in this article is neither a hoax, nor libelous, nor a copyright violation and as clear redirect or merge locations exist (to the show's article, to the character list proposed above, for example), at worst we would consider those alternatives instead of redlinking per WP:PRESERVE (a policy) and User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better and even then a transwiki location would still also be considered as a courtesy to our readership per Wikipedia:Editors matter. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better. It is a standard fictional character article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a very notable character, the first Cylon of a notable long running and insanely popular series. Don't destroy something because you don't like it, when it is clearly not harming anyone, and some might find it interesting to read. There are mentions of this character in the media, and references are now in the article. Dream Focus 00:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No WP:RS indication of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the RS for independent notability are actually fairly good for this character, which is only to be expected: in general, the central characters of major series will be separately notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator may have begun this AFD with the phrase "character with no evidence or assertion of notability"... and had that echoed by a few others, but upon a diligent WP:AFTER, I find this fictional character does indeed does have some decent coverage in multiple reliable sources. Per WP:WAF and available sources, there's no need to merge or redirect to some arbitrary list. If a concern is surmountable, there is no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well referenced article. Per DGG and Michael. Okip ^{BLP Contest} 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
closing administrator please note there have been significant improvements since this nomination.[1] Okip ^{BLP Contest} 03:34, 17 February 2010 (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.