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 no consensus. In this case it seems the community would prefer to assess each article individually. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Doral[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, relies far too heavily on plot summaries and not on demonstrating any notability whatsoever. Sources (if any) do not assert notability for the nominated characters. Cylon B (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_characters. Normally I would defer to the nominator's obvious superior knowledge when it comes to these matters, given that s/he is a Cylon. But this is an unambiguous search term, so there's no reason not to redirect to the appropriate list. A Train^talk 13:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All and warn nominator for WP:BEFORE failure. While the nominator asserts that the articles fail to meet the GNG, a trivial search using the news, books, or scholar links for Aaron Doral, above, springs to life with gems like this. Cylon B, just because an article could be improved doesn't mean it's worthy for deletion. You were told previously to nominate character articles individually and a few at a time--a smaller mass nomination misses the point. I'll add a few more examples of character coverage of Cavil--I've added a Find Sources template for him above. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:Jclemens -- would you argue that any of the sources you've posted here establish depth of coverage for any of the article topics in this AFD? For example, one of the Battlestar Galactica books in your sources mentions Aaron Doral just twice. Leaving aside the question of the book's suitability as a Wikipedia source, that's a book entirely on the subject of BSG that considers Aaron Doral to be trivial. A Train^talk 17:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards: the nominator, and those arguing for deletion, are expected to demonstrate that the topic could never be reasonably expected to meet the GNG. You're arguing about one particular source in isolation, which, regardless of the outcome, does not establish that there is 1) no coverage, as the nominator asserts, or 2) not likely to ever be sufficient coverage. If you look through the scholar links, especially on some of the more prominent characters, you'll find that academics are still writing about it, just like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, such that no matter how much a particular editor doesn't like the topic, the coverage is present and continuing. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]... and we could go on and on all day. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Number Three given the following sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 from a rather brief Google search and there may be more with more digging. I would have to agree with Jclemens to keep John Cavil. I am uncertain about the others, but I am not a fan of doing mass nominations with AFDs (I have done in the past admittedly). I feel that this would be best going one by one or doing two to three per nomination instead of this) But that is just my advice for that part so feel free to ignore it. It will take a lot of time, but it can be rather difficult to respond to multiple articles at once and fairly determine either way about each individual one. And to echo Jclemens point, just because an article is really bad shape, it does not mean that is a reason for deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion, as these mass nominations are not helpful. These characters may or may not meet the GNG, but I think individual attention is warranted. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2017 (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.