Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Gale (Lost)

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 of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Gale (Lost)

Delete Secondary character on the television series Lost. His information is already included on the Characters of Lost page. "Henry Gale" is also not the actual name of this as-yet-unnamed character, but rather an alias he used when lying to the castaways. Danflave 18:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For reasons in nomination. -- PKtm 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters of Lost. --Isotope23 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable minor character as stand-alone article per WP:FICT. There is far to much content to be dumped into Characters of Lost. Characters of Lost should only have concise descriptions of all the characters. We should have "list of character" articles, but we should not have "composite articles", which is the problem with Characters of Lost is. If Henry Gale (Lost) isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article, he certainly isn't notable enough for that much space in the larger article (which distracts from the rest of the content). People should be able to read "list of character" articles to get a quick grasp of who everybody is, without being forced into extensive detail of individual characters. --Rob 20:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Character is not notable enough to have his own page. "Henry Gale" is not a likely search term so this page is pretty useless. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 21:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', important character from the TV series, and yes, it's very likely people would be searching for this name. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable character for more than one reason. Since the season hasn't ended yet, its hard to determine exactly how important he actually is. So I vote keep for now until proof that he is not notable. ArgentiumOutlaw 07:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable character on Lost. He's a current character, and may even develop into a major minor characters. He's been featured in every episode since his discovery, so he's pretty notable. Morhange 21:12, 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. He is yet another of the many characters in Lost about whom we know next-to-nothing. At the point at which this minor character becomes notable, then he can merit a separate article. (In this case, however, everything he's stated about himself, including his name is a lie.) Wikipedia:Fiction says: Non-notable minor characters... in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters."—Leflyman^Talk 03:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to expand. Arbusto 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Leflyman. --Easter Monkey 07:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Characters of Lost. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of Lostcruft. Stifle (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Characters of Lost. This is a show in progress. We have no idea who will become a major character and worthy of a separate article. Let's give it some time. Rillian 01:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - character is not notable enough to have his own page --MaNeMeBasat 10:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well, obviously hes now a big character, and is returning for season 3, so he should stay.

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.