Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zak Adama


 * 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 merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters. How the minor characters will be handled in the list is a content decision. If, after discussion, they aren't added to the list and show no potential use, they can be brought to Redirects for discussion. czar 02:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Zak Adama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable character, if not one of the least notable character to have it's own Wikipedia page and this is not BSG Wiki. Not to mention that this is also unsourced and do not indicate notability. Cylon B (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I am the one who created the article and even now I don't believe it's noteworthy for inclusion in Wikipedia. Delete it. Smeggysmeg (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi : Per the content of your !vote, it appears that you may only be referring to the Zak Adama article. Is this the case? Note that three articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America1000 07:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable.★Trekker (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - some interesting info here, just not worthy of its own article. Merge into William Adama and redirect.Timtempleton (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi : Per the content of your !vote, it appears that you may only be referring to the Zak Adama article. Is this the case? Note that three articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America1000 07:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, your assumption is correct. Not sure how I missed that.  Based on the role of each, my vote is still merge for Adama, and keep for the other two.Timtempleton (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Zak Adama as per ; Delete the other two as non-notable. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that a total of three articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America1000 07:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment this alone, of Cylon B's multiple-character nominations, has not yet been closed as "nominate them all individually because this isn't a good way to tackle the problem" There's no question that these four different characters from the same fictional franchise have differing notability. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Jclemens that these characters warrant individual attention. I recommend that this debate be closed as no consensus with a recommendation that the articles be nominated separately. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Why go through this three times? These are all minor characters. Zak is the strongest of the bunch, and you can't inherit notability from your fictional brother and father. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all unless someone can provide sourcing convincing enough to show that they may merit individual attention. Notability needs to be established if individual articles are to exist. TTN (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete All - All three are extremely minor fictional characters. As said above, Zak is the only one that can even come close to making any claim of notability, but even he fails to gather any reliable sources.  The sources brought up when doing the searches for the characters are only one to two sentence mentions that are only in the context of plot summary, which makes theme extremely trivial and not suitable for establishing notability.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Battlestar Galactica characters -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that the above three delete !votes 1) Fail to address the non-trivial independent, reliable sourcing I identified earlier in the AfD, 2) fail to address why a merge or redirect are not appropriate options per WP:ATD. In TTN's case, this is clearly a willfully disruptive action, as he knows full well how merges of not independently notable content works, since he's done it himself in other franchises.  I'll further note that the nominator is, and remains, a WP:SPA with no edits other than to try and delete, trim, or merge Battlestar Galactica content in the past month. Jclemens (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think minor characters such as this is notable enough to have their own page. How is this "clearly a willfully disruptive action" when I'm doing this for the interest of Wikipedia. Cylon B (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not TTN, so I'm not calling your actions willfully disruptive: you're either a clueless newbie SPA or a sockpuppet behaving like a clueless newbie SPA. "Minor" is unimportant; many minor things can be notable, as all of these characters appear to be to me.  Please explain the GNG to me and how it applies to fictional characters: Not that I need to know it, but you really ought to be able to articulate it before you go around trying to 'improve' Wikipedia by deleting others' content. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To address concerns raised by Jclemens, that delete !voters might have overlooked WP:ATD  So Why  18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  18:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I had originally closed this, but the close appears to contentious. Rather than get this dragged through DRV, I've just backed out my close and am relisting it for some other admin to come along and close.
 * Merge and Redirect to List of Battlestar Galactica characters, that's the best way to handle all these minor characters. Also avoids creating a clickbait redlink.    Montanabw (talk) 19:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all - Not notable characters. Needs multiple, strong sources suggesting notability.  Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  03:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect. These are minor characters; standalone articles border on cruft. Vanamonde (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge Zak Adama into William Adama and redirect. Link from List of Battlestar Galactica characters. Rakerman (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete'. I would say Merge but there're no refs. You can merge it if you prefer. Why is this even being kept open? There was one Keep vote and that back during the Obama Administration for chrissakes. It's not a popular article. Herostratus (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (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.