Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie (Star Trek) (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 Merge and Redirect the character to List of Star Trek characters: G-M (done); Keep actor without prejudice to re-listing. BLACKKITE 11:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie (Star Trek)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leslie (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article clearly does not meet the requirements of the general notability guideline expressed in WP:N. The single reference given in the article does not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The coverage in that source is simply trivial and is not enough to assert notability. There was a previous AfD for this article in which some people cited WP:FICT, but WP:FICT is now heavily disputed as it fails to adhere to either WP:N or WP:V. I also think that the closing admin simply did a head count instead of assessing the validity of the comments. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article about the actor who played this minor character, because there is no indication of notability, and the only reference given is to Memory Alpha, which isn't a reliable source for either verification or assertion of notability:

Eddie Paskey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Redshirt (character) already uses an image of this character as an example, and includes the reference listed in this character's article. I can't see anything else worth merging, the rest seems too trivial. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both As pointed out during an earlier nomination, Leslie did have some lines on the show. And further, there are all sorts of minor characters on List of Star Trek characters who have articles of their own. Watchsmart (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having a few lines in a show does not constitute notability. Only significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can assert notability. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good enough reason to keep something. The other articles will be dealt with in time. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument and the whole point of redshirts is that they're nonentities. Chris Cunningham (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, at least until the desicion is made on W:FICT. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fictional page as cruft, keep actor's page as minimally notable. JJL (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable fictional character. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. I'm not a Trekkie, I'm a Trekker bordering on a Trekkist, but this just isn't notable by any standard. I explicitly omit the "cute little corners of Wikipedia" standard. It's suitable for Memory Alpha or Wikia's Memory Beta, but doesn't pass WP:FICT. --Dhartung | Talk 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable character and actor. 86.136.83.63 (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eddie Paskey, merge Leslie S. Trek As a bit player in a cult favorite that's aired over and over, he's notable. Indeed, nearly every actor associated with the original series is a part of the culture of the show. Paskey was on five of the episodes, had a name, and even had a role that even casual fans remember. On "This Side of Paradise" (the one where spores made it where nobody on the Enterprise gave a shit about their job), he's the guy who gives the "f--- you" response to William Shatner's bold "This is MUTINY, mister!" (something like, "Yeah, I guess it is"). One of the print magazines devoted to the show dubbed him the "King of the Redshirts". As with Michael Barrier, he's one of those people you've seen som many times, you eventually say "who WAS that guy"? Mandsford (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the actor, merge the character. I note, btw, that a lot of the !votes above seem to be about only the character. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eddie Paskey, merge Leslie into List of Star Trek characters. His article is destined to remain a non-notable stub forever, and would be better treated by being merged into a list; but Paskey's article has enough notable content to justify existence in its own right. Terraxos (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete character - Star Trek is notable, every minor character is not, including this one. What's next, articles on individual tribbles? Kirk's quarters? The actor may be able to be established as notable - delete too, if not improved by the time this AfD is closed. --Jack Merridew 21:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eddie Paskey, merge the character unless more evidence found. Paskey has some coverage including this NYT article.[1]. Starlog issue #143 ("King of the Redshirts") covers him, but I don't have that source in hand. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actor, Merge and redirect character. Paskey, as a character actor, does achieve the notability standards, but the problem is that he's not always Lt. Leslie in Trek, as is explained in the article. He does quite a bit, but as a minor character, probably belongs in the list of Trek chars. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the gun, merge the canoli Er ...Delete As a fan, this character has little notability in universe. The actor can be kept based on some of the minimal reference material provided. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gotta have a sense of humor and fun! Wasted Time R (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To improve clarity, I have struck through the above unhelpful comment. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I'm unstriking it. I'm a serious editor with 28,000 edits. My input to the AfD process is to keep the article, on grounds of "cute little corners of Wikipedia", on grounds that Star Trek is special because it created modern fancruft as we know it, and yes on the grounds that a few articles deserve to exist just because their existence is humorous. And it's up to the admin that closes this AfD to decide how much weight to give my input, not you. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning Although editing of articles is freely done, you are not allowed to edit other people's comments, Gorgan. The closing administrator does not need anybody's assistance in understanding the discussion, nor should Wasted Time have to "waste time" undoing vandalism. Please note that anonymous edits are easily verified as part of the editing history. Mandsford (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seeing the nom. strike out keep comments is....distressing. JJL (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Recurring character on the original incarnation of a vastly influential and important program, and actor who played that character as well as several others. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete character or merge to appropriate character list. (Indifferent about the actor.) Insignificant per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Leslie; Keep Eddie. The actor has several other roles - and to say his primary character isn't notable isn't to say he isn't notable. That's 59 episodes over two years (plus other roles). •97198 talk 14:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Delete Leslie because he is a trivial character who only received trivial coverage which centred around his triviality.
    2. Abstain Eddie because I think WP:BLP should be relevant here, but I'm no expert on that policy.
    3. Wish these had been two separate nominations.--Yannick (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Could we please split these two up? --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete Leslie into list of characters. There is a word for this, and it is known as fancruft. A minor character is not noteworthy of an encyclopedia article. There are Star Trek wikis for this. No comment on the actor. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm unable to find any verifiable reliable sources - the book in there isn't really enough to assert notability. Actor may, however, be notable - that should be listed separately. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 10:05, 22 December 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leslie_(Star_Trek)_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137985973"