G'Kar: Only one decent source about him in the page, and a BEFORE check found no others.  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy .  QuicoleJR ( talk ) 16:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Appropriate in-depth coverage in multiple dead tree books in my possession: Bassom, David, and J. Michael Straczynski.  Creating Babylon 5: Behind the Scenes of Warner Bros.  Revolutionary Deep Space TV Drama .  New York: Ballantine Books, 1997.  ———.  The A-Z of Babylon 5: The Complete Reference Guide to the Groundbreaking Sci-Fi Series Created by J. Michael Straczynski .  New York, NY: Dell Publishing, 1997.  Guffey, Ensley F., and K. Dale Koontz.  A Dream given Form: The Unofficial Guide to the Universe of Babylon 5 .  Toronto, ON: ECW Press, 2017.  Johnson-Smith, Jan.  American Science Fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and Beyond .  Middletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press, 2005.  Lancaster, Kurt.  Interacting with Babylon 5: Fan Performance in a Media Universe .  Austin: University of Texas Press, 2001.  Lane, Andy.  The Babylon File: The Definitive Unauthorised Guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV Series Babylon 5.  Vol.  2.  London: Virgin, 1999.  ———.  The Babylon File: The Definitive Unauthorized Guide to J. Michael Straczynski’s TV Series, Babylon 5 .  London: Virgin, 1997.  If there's an ABF that none of these contain sufficient non-trivial independent commentary on G'Kar, I simply don't know what to say.  Babylon 5 was from the era of Genie, Compu$erve, and AOL.  It was discussed on BBSes before there were such things as pop culture websites, so it doesn't entirely surprise me that not much was found in a standard BEFORE.   Adding Katsulas (the actor's last name) or Mollari (his opposing character's surname) will get you better results.  Jclemens ( talk ) 19:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment, while this does help establish notability and SIGCOV, I would like to know what these sources in question say about G'Kar before making a vote, as these are physical books I don't happen to have access to.  I'd also like to see how they can be used to improve the current state of the article.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 12:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They're not organized to provide a single character sketch.  For example, roughly half of them go through the series episode by episode, so there are G'Kar commentaries on multiple relevant episodes.  Dream Given Form has (p. 480) a full page bio/obit of Katsulas, since it was published after his death that notes, in part, "G'Kar's transformation, especially when read in conjunction with Londo 's, is truly one of the great character arcs in television history."  There's more like that scattered around these books. The card representing G'Kar in the B5 collectable card game gets a multi-page treatment (interspersed with commentaries on the other ambassadors' cards) in Interacting with Babylon 5.   Bottom line?  If I had the time to improve the character article with the sources present, that would be a better use of my time than expounding on them here.  Jclemens ( talk ) 18:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course.  Still, given how you've described them to me, I'm going to have to say Keep on this one.  Combined with some of the sources other commenters have found, there's way more than enough to establish G'Kar here.  Thank you for taking the deep dive through your books for this one.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens.  Easily meets WP:GNG .  -- Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment More secondary sources: Science Fiction Television Series, 1990-2004 has a lot of content on G'Kar from comments by the actor and fellow actor.  Daranios ( talk ) 15:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Enough secondary sources have been provided.  Many more where G'Kar is at least mentioned appear in the usual Google Books and Google Scholar searches.  If the nominator believes that none of them amount to anything, I think at least a few words of explanation would be in order.  Daranios ( talk ) 18:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify Right now the article is clearly in an unencyclopedic state.  Assuming it is true that sources do exist on this character, it still requires a rewrite.  Draftification would give time for the article to be improved and submitted via AfC.  If the article cannot be improved within the time the draft is there, then one would have to call the claims of sufficient sourcing into question.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ ) 05:36, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Which of WP:DEL-REASON apply to this article?  If you're going to argue that it should  1) be removed from mainspace, with  2) a ticking timer to deletion under G13.. .  why should it be deleted?  Plenty of articles suck; articles sucking is not a valid reason for deletion.  Jclemens ( talk ) 05:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with @ Jclemens on this one.  It's been established more than enough sources exist, and thus there's no reason to suddenly go about removing this article and putting a time limit on it.  Pokelego999 ( talk ) 15:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Jclemens passes WP:GNG .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep there appear to be sufficient sources for an independent article.   Otherwise a redirect to a character list would still be preferable to deletion.   The article as it stands could probably be trimmed to include less plot summary and more "real world" context but no need for deletion.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 02:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Few years ago when I was doing a B5 article pass for notabilty, I've started the analysis section.  Granted, it is still bare-bones, but the source cited is reliable and is a two-page long book chapter treatment of the character, at an academic level (author is a professor, book is published by Rowman & Littlefield ).  I think that's meets WP:SIGCOV , and per comments above, I am sure we can find another source or several that helps with the GNG requirement of multiple sources (which I understand as "at least two").  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ is right the article is mostly fancruft now, but the topic is notable and the article just needs to be expanded with non-plot summary information and with footnotes added.  -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 04:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep!  – There are sources that prove its notability and literary analysis.  It could have some "expand" tags on it to improve it but regardless I think it is definitely notable and should not be deleted!  DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk ) 10:46, 29 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep