Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Battlestar Galactica characters


 * 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. Consensus is that these should be judged individually (which is impossible with a bundled-AFD), If nomnating I would recommend nominating 2/3 a day as you're gong to get alot of shit for mass-nominating these on 1 day, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Battlestar Galactica characters

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * — sources are all from Wikipedia pages, not reliable third party sources. Does not assert notability.
 * — can't find any reliable third party sources. Does not assert notability.

As these are lead characters, I suggest a keep to these above regardless if they are lacking reliable third party sources. Deletion nomination (mainly to merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters) will apply to those below regardless if their contribution has been one or a few episodes
 * — sources are not working, does not assert notability.
 * — not a main character, only source not working, rest is unsourced.
 * — sources are from other Wikipedia pages, does not assert notability
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages.
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages, recent edits does nothing to persuade me why I should reverse my decision
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages, recent edits does nothing to persuade me why I should reverse my decision
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages, recent edits does nothing to persuade me why I should reverse my decision
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages, recent edits does nothing to persuade me why I should reverse my decision
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages, recent edits does nothing to persuade me why I should reverse my decision
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages, recent edits does nothing to persuade me why I should reverse my decision
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages, recent edits does nothing to persuade me why I should reverse my decision
 * — does not assert notability, sourced from other Wikipedia pages, recent edits does nothing to persuade me why I should reverse my decision

Originally, I merged some of those above to list of Battlestar Galactica characters because either they did not have a WP:VERIFY or articles’ had serious notability issues that was left unresolved for years as presumably like the franchise, nobody cares anymore but it got reverted

Reason to nominate is that these articles seeks to benefit nobody else other than the tiniest number of die-hard fans of the series (if there’s any left) as these unencyclopaedic WP:OR WP:Fancruft mess of articles have varying degrees of notability from maybe to absolutely zero.

Anybody who wants to argue their point in saving, may I offer them to compare those above to iconic sci-fi characters such as Luke Skywalker or James T. Kirk but I doubt they will have anything to match. The only ones that deserve to have it’s own article IMO, are Number Six and Kara Thrace but still, it’s a mess not worth saving.

I also propose to ‘’’delete then merge’’’ to List of Battlestar Galactica characters but then this list also has the same issues, so may I suggest Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series). Cylon B (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Cylon B (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – An idea is to consider keeping the List of Battlestar Galactica characters article and then considering performing selective merges of the other articles into it. The Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) only pertains to the 2004 series, but the list article covers others earlier in time (Original 1978 movie and series, Galactica 1980, etc.). The 2004 series article is also already a bit long at 81,006 bytes, so merging to it may not be advisable, as per WP:SIZERULE. North America1000 17:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Somebody should tell them that this is Wikipedia not BSG Wiki therefore I cannot see a problem with pruning off any unsourced pieces which will bring this down to a manageable size. Cylon B (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I agree that the vast majority of them should probably be redirected to the character list but I also think it is a bit ill-advised to put every one of them into the same deletion.★Trekker (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since my intention was not to delete everything, my proposal is to merge all until except the main characters though they have the same issues as the others, no reliable third party sources and as how do we know if any of them are notable as nothing in the article asserts. If have to allow for some to have articles, I'd pick the few main actors (the ones who appear on opening credits) that's if the issues are resolved. Cylon B (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not what a deletion is for. If the articles have issues you raised your concerns on one or more of the project talk pages and try to fix them. ADF is not meant for anything else than deletions.★Trekker (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The mass deletion of every article on this list. Some could be redirected to [List of Battlestar Galactica characters]], which should be kept no matter what. But if some of these character articles are deleted, then the main character list should be expanded to include details. Each deletion discussion should be done individually. JOJ  Hutton  01:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * STRONGLY oppose. I'm happy to do some work cleaning up these articles, and I just spent some time getting started. Maybe some of them will prove flabby, but most of these articles haven't been edited in some time. Give me some time to work on them. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem you presented with your edits is have you addressed any notability concerns? Also are any of these reliable third party sources other than Wikipedia articles which isn't enough. The two you worked on are some minor characters who are not going to leave a mark in the franchise and will all but forgotten by the most die-hard fans, if there's any left. Cylon B (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been looking through them, and some of the characters could potentially be merged—characters who only appeared in a few episodes like Romo. But that doesn't apply to Kat, and it certainly doesn't apply to Racetrack, who repeatedly plays key roles in the show and is arguably the protagonist. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they were only to one or a few episodes, don't get me wrong, I watched the whole series too but they are not significant nor iconic to be deserving of their own page otherwise their appearance is tad pedestrian compared to Number 6, Starbucks and the Adamas. Cylon B (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that there are certainly characters who could be merged down; you could have a single article for the Significant Seven and the Final Five with breakout articles for Tigh, Tyrol, Six, and Cavil, but otherwise leaving the others in a unified article. Certainly Elosha, Cottle, Crashdown, Billy, Kelly, and Zarek you could move into a unified article. Dualla’s a boundary case. But Kat and especially Racetrack seem to me at least as worthy of standalone articles as Cally, Gaeta, or Helo. I wouldn't agree that they aren't iconic, significant characters. They seem like characters who go to the core of what the show's about. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes to hardcore BSG fans but is it to casual and non-fans, nope. Cylon B (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep all as characters that have in large part received individual coverage sufficient to meet GNG, whether or not those articles currently reflect that coverage. Also, the "delete then merge" outcome is entirely inappropriate even if these were non-notable fictional elements, as merging would itself clean up the presented articles, and deletion prior to such a merge would only serve to impair editors trying to make improvements to one or more of the listed articles. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, you mean ALL, does the minor characters get GNG like the main characters but then I'm sorry that this is Wikipedia, not BSG fansite. Cylon B (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with these mass nominations. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Each article/character on here has varying levels of notability and should be addressed independently from one another (I know that takes a lot of time, but I feel that is the best way to accurately separate the notable characters from those that can be merged/redirected to a list page). I agree with the above discussion that List of Battlestar Galactica characters should be kept so that characters that do not have strong enough notability for their own page can be redirected/merged to this source. Aoba47 (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep (or oppose) – I'd argue at least some of these merit encyclopedic articles. Some might not, but then they can't be discussed in this manner. /Julle (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep without prejudice to renominating one or a handful at a time. The notability of these varies far too significantly for a grouped nomination to result in a clear consensus for each. I note that some of those listed above are already redirects, and I support the idea that others could probably be merged/redirected to the list. I also think it makes sense to separate the characters from the two series, but that's a separate discussion. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)*
 * ("Procedural"?) keep per Rhododendrites. A mass nomination like this isn't ideal. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this just isn't the best way of dealing with this. Artw (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.