Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel T. Anders (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Currently this character is not mentioned at the redirect destination, I will try to create a short description there so that the redirect makes sense, I hope someone will review and expand. ST47 (talk) 23:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Samuel T. Anders
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

A somewhat hesitant nomination, because there's tantalizing hints of this character meeting GNG, but after a fairly detailed search I have only been able to find one independent source providing substantive analysis, rather than plot detail, about Anders (here). That source is pretty inaccessible, content-wise, and likely ought to be treated at Cylon (Battlestar Galactica). The previous AfDs were largely procedural closures as a result of a mass nomination, and there's nothing there that establishes notability for specific cases. Therefore, delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The current article is very bad (pure plot summary). But I don't understand the comment "That source is pretty inaccessible, content-wise, and likely ought to be treated at Cylon (Battlestar Galactica)." The cited source is pretty good, with some analysis interposed with plot summary. There is also a two page essayish and rambling treatment of him in, not sure if the book is even reliable, seems like fancrut bookified. There may be something in but I only get a snippet view. Interesting sentence: "Their only regret is that we didn ' t have a chapter devoted exclusively to the aesthetic value of Samuel T . Anders" . Anyway, did you search for his name without the T? I did and I also found , which seemst to again discuss this character on 2+ pages, and goes way beyond the plot summary (feminization, etc.). I think that there is enough in sources here that someone who cares abot these themes could write a good section about reception/analysis. I will also note that there are several GScholar works that mention this character, through most seem to be in passing, but again, if anyone cares, maybe there is a paragraph of analysis hidden somewhere among that dozen or so GScholar hits. Still, given the decent coverage in two books that goes beyond plot summary or a sentnece or two, with each yielding a page+ content about him, I think he is notable (although that plot summary masquarading as an article is almost TNT-able...).  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I mean only that the material has to do with gender and cyborgs, and could be handled at our page about the cylons. The "unauthorized guide" source I give no weight to; I'm come across it before, and it's pure plot summary, so far as I can tell. The passing mention, too, is not something I can give much weight to; "we could cover Anders but chose not to" is not a substitute for detailed coverage. this source I have similar concerns with as the first; it's more a discussion of gender among "hybrids" than it is an analysis of Anders; I'm willing to be persuaded, though. I'm surprised I didn't find it, I definitely did a search without the "T". Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect - I'd say redirecting to a relevant character list and exploring the available sources from there would be the best. If they can only produce a paragraph of text, then it'd be better spent to improve the list. If it turns out they add a lot of weight, then the article can be brought back at that time. TTN (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters would appear most appropriate in this instance since they are mentioned there. If an article is created for a real person by that name, we can always move the redirect. -- The SandDoctor Talk 05:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will go with Redirect. The article currently has 2565 words of "readable prose" supported by one reference that is a question/answer interview with the Executive producer covering what appears to be a partial paragraph in the "Revelation" section. It has been rumored that "Wikipedia does not publish WP:original research". The only possible way to check where the content (currently in the article) came from would be to look at theBattlestar Wiki in the "External links". That, however, is not an acceptable source, likely not acceptable as an external link, and if a source is to be used as a reference it should not be from a link in the "External links" section anyway. There may be acceptable "sources out there" (somewhere) but if content can't be verified it should not be in an article. The bottom line is: To be acceptable as a stand alone article it would pretty much have to be chopped to a very thin stub with more than one supporting source. Just adding references, or stating they are "out there" does not solve the issue of OR. This would mean the article title should be redirected. Someday someone may choose to create an acceptable sourced article. It should be noted that the character is portrayed by a living person so the article falls under WP:BLP which states, This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. Otr500 (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2020 (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.