Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number Four (Battlestar Galactica)


 * 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 redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters.  Sandstein  06:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Number Four (Battlestar Galactica)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Minor Battlestar Galactica character. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. Previous AfD was a bundled mess (Articles for deletion/Aaron Doral (2nd nomination) which I recently reonominated individually was just closed as redirect). All I see for him are just a (very, very) few mentions him in passing (WP:SIGCOV fail), and there is no discussion of him outside plot summary anyway. There is nothing to salvage here (since the entry is unreferenced, not counting one footnote to a TV series episode), so a redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters is best we can do here, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. No discussion of substance in independent reliable sources. Perhaps a little of this can be merged to a list or other parent article. BD2412  T 06:45, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect per nom, surely. I don't understand why the nom didn't simply redirect it?—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Because redirects are a form of sneaky deletion without community oversight and I dislike being sneaky. PRODs are controversial enough. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  10:56, 5 July 2021 (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.