Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cy (Cylon)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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#Galactica 1980. Any useful content may be merged at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cy (Cylon)[edit]

Cy (Cylon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article consists of plot summaries. Single episode wonder and though reprogrammed, is no different to other Cylons. Why is this allowed to have it's own article Cylon B (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exterminate! Exterminate! per nom. Daleks are the true cyborg masters of the universe. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • To answer the rhetorical question, because it's been covered in multiple, independent, non-trivial places, such as Finding BSG and BSG and Philosophy. Keep and this and other unfounded nominations from this editor are getting ridiculous. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you seriously think two mentions in one paragraph and three in another satisfy GNG? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're asserting that that's all there is extant, then I am afraid you (and J Milburn and Aoba47) appear to have mistaken 'examples' for 'an exhaustive list'; as an aside "such as" is a good clue that I'm citing examples. this is inaccessible, this mentions the episode in 14 separate pages in the index, but I can't see the pages with preview. There's the usual suspects of episode reviews and fan commentaries which aren't RS, and a few other books that I can't find definitive references to this episode in using Google search, but probably have about the same level as what we have here. That's a few minutes of searching. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or, if preferred, merge somewhere. I am not convinced that the sources Jclemens has identified are sufficient for this topic to meet the GNG. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a site for a merge can be located. I agree with Josh Milburn. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (sigh) Anyone who's invested any time in reviewing the topic should readily identify our article on Galactica 1980 as the parent for this fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then, I vote to merge this to Galactica 1980. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That article has no character list and no mention of this character at the present time. It doesn't come across as a particularly inviting merge target. List of Battlestar Galactica characters and Cylon (1978) appear to be at least as viable. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point, the article should merged to either one of those two as they appear more viable than the previous one. Thank you for clearing it up a little. I am more learning to the List of Battlestar Galactica characters as Cy is already referenced there. Aoba47 (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:10, 14 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.