Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Margaret Edmondson

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. The community prefers to assess the notability of each character individually. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Margaret Edmondson

(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)

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

None of these support characters appears notable or show any evidence of any backed by sources. Fails WP:GNG, relies too heavily on plot summaries backed by other Wikipedia page as sources and not on demonstrating character's notability. Cylon B ( talk) 23:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC) reply

This is a repeat nomination right on the heels of the last one ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_characters), and I continue to oppose it for Racetrack and Kat. (I am neutral regarding the others.) I realize that she doesn't have a lot of dialogue, but Racetrack is such a pivotal character—she is a witness to or participant in every major event of the show—that it's really hard for me to see her not having her own article. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 14:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

That's the view of a fan. "Racetrack is such a pivotal character—she is a witness to or participant in every major event of the show". source? Are casual and lesser fans going to care about that fact? The fact you don't have any sources to back this up and I was told I can renominated this again but in bits why I did it again. Cylon B ( talk) 23:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jclemens ( talk) 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens ( talk) 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens ( talk) 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

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) 06:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I can offer to remove 3 of these as I thought 5 was okay if that's what you want but my argument remains the same. Cylon B ( talk) 01:03, 9 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) 20:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC) reply
I agree with J Milburn that mass nominations are not that helpful as they do not allow users to appropriately determine the notability of each individual article/character. Aoba47 ( talk) 18:21, 9 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.