Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie (Star Trek)

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 keep by consensus. --Aarktica 20:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie (Star Trek)

So unnotable it barely needs explanation. Philip Stevens 20:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I think the amount of interesting information present (i.e. the multiple roles filled throughout the series) constitutes an argument for keeping as a major character per WP:FICT --Eyrian 20:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article needed wikifying by linking to other articles which proved it's notability. I have done this. Nardman1 21:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. More links to other articles to prove it's notability a bit more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymac407 (talk • contribs)
    • Actually most of what I did was link TO this article from the appropriate articles. This one already links to Star Trek, redshirt, and the actor who plays Leslie. Nardman1 21:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. He was apparently in more episodes than a few main characters. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete or Redirect/Merge to Redshirt Fancruft. George Leung 23:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Either merge to List of Star Trek characters, or create Minor characters in Star Trek and 'merge to that article, per WP:FICT. Sixty trivial appearances by a minor character does not make one a major character. No reliable sources showing independent notability for this character are cited in the article nor were found in my quick search. The little sliding knobs on the transporter console appeared in almost every ST:TOS episode, but that does not make them a major character nor meet the WP:ATT requirement. By the way, "More links to other articles" would not "prove its notability"; we need multiple non-trivial coverage by fact-checked sources, not fan pages. Barno 23:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to List of Star Trek characters or even the article on Eddie Paskey, unless some coverage of him can be found, such as in a magazine devoted to science fiction television, or some such. FrozenPurpleCube 02:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, this guy didn't have a single line in most of the episodes he was in. He's little more than an extra. I'm amazed that only one person has voted delete. If this page is kept then that's just inviting all the trekies to start creating pages for That ensign who stood next to Data in Encounter at Farpoint. --Philip Stevens 05:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • weak keep. An interesting article. May be a minor character, but clearly one recurring frequently enough to be of note. Grutness...wha? 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per george leung reasonsOo7565 07:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - less than a minor character, he was a recurring background character. -- Whpq 16:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep.He was apparently in more episodes than a few main characters-- doesn't the discussion end here? Mdiamante 02:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - the door to the bridge was also in more episodes than a few main characters but that doesn't mean anything in terms of notability. He was a background redshirt. -- Whpq 12:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This isn't about notability, it's about importance. Notability is established by appearance in popular media. Importance determines whether or not he gets his own article. I think the number of episodes, and role as off-screen gag, qualifies for that level of importance. --Eyrian 19:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • He wasn't just a background redshirt...he was THE redshirt. The term comes FROM HIM. Nardman1 20:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. He has a whole website [1] devoted just to him. Also, if you review the aformentioned site, you'll see he plays a semi-important role in several episodes, some being: "The Enemy Within," "The Naked Time," "The Alternative Factor," "Return of the Archons," "Space Seed"(kind of), "This Side of Paradise," "The Trouble with Tribbles"(and, therefore, "Trials and Tribble-ations,") "Obsession," & "And the Children Shall Lead." Ye Olde Luke 00:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Ye Olde Luke

Dangit. The link doesn't work. Anyway, it's the Lt. Leslie Archives, and the link works on Leslie's page. If you want to, use the link on there.68.111.167.39 03:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Ye Olde Luke

It's a website in the AOL member space. That's not reliable, third-party coverage. That's somebody's web page. FrozenPurpleCube 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree the website is rather Leslie-biased. Nevertheless, you can see that Leslie does play a role in several Star Trek episodes, a role larger than just a background hallway-crosser.Ye Olde Luke 22:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Ye Olde Luke
  • Strong Keep, because Leslie defines the importance of "supporting-extras" in the Star Trek series. While he obviously was not a lead character, his presence in many of the shows provided important transistion or turning points that made the story flow. Richard W. Halsey 18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Leslie might define the importance, but the key question is, who defines Leslie as that kind of importance? You need a source. FrozenPurpleCube 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
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.