Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hera Agathon

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hera Agathon[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)

Non notable minor character, fails WP:GNC; article, like every other articles about BSG characters, consists of plot summaries and nothing else. This is Wikipedia, not BSG Wiki. If you are to vote keep, please select which one and why. Cylon B (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and sanction nominator for repeated mass nominations with WP:BEFORE failures. Each of the four articles, although Kelly's appears to be the weakest, has at least two book mentions available through Google Books in the above Find Sources templates. Each meets the GNG, and thus is not a candidate for outright deletion, and merging is at most an editorial discussion. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of them per Jclemens. RSes clearly exist, and every article is a summary of what they did in-universe, which complies at least on a basic level with MOS:PLOT. Articles aren't in bad shape either. Way too early to drag out the WP:TNT. Karunamon ^✉ 06:11, 7 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) 20:52, 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.