Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugo Austin
as disruptive mass nomination (the community cannot reasonably be expected to adequately review scores of these in a mere week and based on comments above, it is clear that accounts are indeed just looking at some without considering each one, which is problematic because they vary considerably on terms of quality from one to the next; and also disruptive because of the various bad faith accusations in the discussion above).  Moreover, various of the so-called delete claims above either reflect not looking at the articles or are flatout just dishonest.  Let us first take the titular article.  Well, its contents are certainly |verifiable, as I was able to confirm out of universe information from a Google News source, which I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hugo_Austin&diff=300831789&oldid=300127556 added to the article, which means the article contains some non-plot information and thus meets the heavily disputed and thus consensus lacking #PLOT, because they are not actually only "plot".  The fact that they contain out of universe information verifiable through reliable sources also means that they meet the  (as there are millions of fictional characters that get no Google News results, whereas these ones do) and at least one of the many versions of the proposed , which changes constantly anyway.  So, at a minimum the articles do meet , and because we know they are not hoaxes, nor libelous, then even at worst, they would be merged and redirected per  and .  Now whether the individual articles should remain or if they should me merged or redirect is for the individual talk pages.  Deletion is clearly and overwhelmingly a bad call that no one seriously supports, and again, the notability and verifiability varies per character.  Tony Holden and the actor who played as him as a search string gets http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Tony+Holden%22+%22Jon+Sivewright%22&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a six Google News hits, some others get more, others less.  It would take a post equal to this entire discussion thus far and then some to adequately go through every single one of the items listed above.  Finally, Wikipedia does not have a deadline.  There is no pressing, dire need to hurry up and get rid of these now when other options like sourcing (as I have begun to do to Hugo Austin and the second item on the list, etc.--the sources are out there!), or merging and redirecting are on the table.  Sincerely
— User:A, 17:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:NOT||WP:GNG||WP:FICT||WP:V||WP:BEFORE||WP:PRESERVE (Wikipedia:Verifiability)