Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desmond (Lost)

Desmond (Lost)

Minor character of series with next to no information available. Not notable. Duplicative of information already in the summary article Characters of Lost. PKtm 03:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Characters of Lost. BryanG 04:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i think this pag should stay as it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.234.32 (talk • contribs)
Merge into Characters of Lost --E ivind ^t ^@^c 11:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because we'll be adding it shortly anyway! SergeantBolt 11:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters of Lost. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Knowing that the season finale will be about him, more information will be available. --muhaidib-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Characters of Lost where it belongs. He has only appeared on a few episodes and even if the season finale will feature him, that is not enough for an entire encyclopedia article. Danflave 18:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- he's going to get a flashback episode in a few weeks, we're going to learn a whole lot, i say keep it. rose and bernard get their own articles, and desmond should too. 207.76.182.20 19:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SergeantBolt... since it appears that "flashback" is the criteria for a character getting their own article, this will be recreated in a few weeks... Of course if merge is the consensus then someone just needs to go back before the redirect edit that will be left, edit the historical article, and add to it with the new info... so it's not really a big deal either way; keep just saves the admins some time!--Isotope23 19:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until there's discussion on whether this page is needed. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per SergeantBolt. If you must, I say that you wait and reconsider deleting this page on May 25th. -- Wikipedical 00:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, this page should not have been created before May 25. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 02:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, you are questioning the idea of an article on a future event. Look at a page on a future award show for example. Should we delete the page on the next Oscar Awards because we don't have enough information to fill it in as of now? It's more of a reference, which is encyclopedic. In practice on Wikipedia, if a character gets a flashback episode, they get a page. Articles with confirmed future events are on Wikipedia and should should remain to be. Desmond will get a flashback episode on May 24th, just as the 79th Academy Awards will be held on February 25, 2007. -- Wikipedical 21:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite an official source that says Desmond will have a flashback? Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite an official source that says he won't? I agree with Wikipedical in that we should wait, until we know for sure that either he will not be having his own flashback episode or that there wasn't enough information about him at the end of the season. I don't think we should delete or change things radically immediately before some potential new information arises. We'll find out in 3 weeks either way I guess. ArgentiumOutlaw 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make any sense. You cannot keep adding information based on what you think will happen, what spoiler sites say, and what people speculate on message boards. You people need to stop treating Wikipedia like a fansite. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jtrost is right, it makes no sense. We can't cite an official source that Turbine Guy won't have a flashback episode either, but that's not an excuse to give him his own page. I'm starting to think, I hate to say, that keeping Lost pages free of fancruft is almost impossible, given its immense popularity and the endless supply of enthusiastic newcomers to Wikipedia at the same time. Having these recurring debates about fundamental Wikipedia tenets (e.g., verifiability, not a crystal ball, etc.) is utterly exhausting. -- PKtm 00:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & wait per Wikipedical. --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 01:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons already mentioned above. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---"--- Jon Harald Søby 11:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and redirect to Characters of Lost page, as this article is completely redundant. Those arguing for "Keep" are doing so for entirely un-Wikipedia reasons. At the point at which this minor character becomes notable, then the character can merit a separate article. At this time, he is yet another of the many characters in Lost which as of now we know next-to-nothing about. Wikipedia:Fiction says: Non-notable minor characters... in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." Note to those saying "Merge": unless you state "Delete" as your preference, your vote will not be counted as contrary to "Keep"—Leflyman^Talk 03:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]