Deletion of Tetralogy

Comment: per . A serious deep, Internet search must be done, or at least a little work, before nominations such as these. Editors lose respect and reputation when they nominate randomly
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: just as duology: , and the articles presents no non-trivial information that would make for independent notability. wikt:tetraology should be used where (and if) necessary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT)

Comment: Hexalogy and Heptalogy as  and '''keep''' Tetralogy for now. These kinds of combined AFDs get confusing and make it difficult to form a consensus. It's possible we need a simple article for fictional series or something. I will agree that none of these articles have sufficient coverage to be more than a dictionary definition / list. But there is some consensus that Tetralogy has some  and deserves time before deciding if it deserves an article once and for all
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTDEF||WP:POTENTIAL)

Comment: This is a  plus a list of some works that come in four parts. A category for the concept makes some sense, but an article or a list seem not necessary
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICTDEF)