Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law & Order: Trial by Jury characters

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. Should be brought individually to AfD, or just boldly merged, especially as at least one of the characters is clearly not independently notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Kibre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three - three non-notable fictional characters from a defunct TV series. There are no sources that establish that any of these characters are notable. Two of the articles have had sourcing requests for over three years, but none will be forthcoming because they don't exist. Sources that do exist merely mention the characters and are limited to such things as "Bebe Neuwirth, who played Tracey Kibre on Trial by Jury" and don't establish notability. Calvin Grant (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some leeway for having a page for Tracey and there are articles found talking about her. Case in point People Magazine on this character (the ADA) and the DA from Law & Order. [1] There are also more recent articles that mention the character plus do Wikipedia the added honor of a link to this page. Why turn down free publicity?[2]
It should also be noted that TV Guide also has pages of info on this character's actions in episodes.[3] What this really needs is somekind of expert on this show to fill in the detailed story on the character. Silent Bob (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All three of these supposed sources are exactly the sort of passing mentions of the characters that I noted in the nomination and they do not establish the notability of the characters. The People article is a brief review of the series that mentions the Kibre and Gaffney characters in a single sentence each and make no mention of the Salazar character. The second source, an article about Barry Bonds, mentions the Kibre character in one sentence and makes no mention of the other two characters. The TV Guide source is a single-sentence plot summary of an episode of the series. They establish that the Kibre character exists but they existence and notability are not the same thing. What these really need are some kind of sources that offer significant coverage of the characters and no such coverage exists in reliable sources. Calvin Grant (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Tracey Kibre is notable, having been noticed by sources such as The Cambridge guide to American theatre and the New York Times. The nominator seems to be on a disruptive deletion spree vs Law and Order and gives the impression of being a banned sockpuppet like Dalejenkins. Warden (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "noticed" is not significant coverage in reliable sources. "Oh look, a thing!" is not the standard for inclusion. Significant coverage in reliable sources is. And I do not appreciate being falsely accused of things. Personal attacks serve no purpose other than to expose your own weaknesses. Calvin Grant (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all nom is fatally flawed in that it presumes "defunct" matters. The current state of a TV show does not change the fact that it was broadcast on a national network, hence notable, and is entitled to a list of (not individually notable) characters. Thus, if either of the two individuals are non-notable, they should be merged to the general character list rather than being deleted entirely. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I agree 75% with what User:Jclemens has said. I think the pages should stay as they are. But also on the basis that User:Calvin Grant is an alias of many other "users" seeking notable pages mostly in the Law & Order (franchise) to be deleted. There will be a full investigation into why most pages are being "put up" for deletion for 'nobility'.--SVU4671 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a no-brainer even though the nominator has been blocked. Whether or not "defunct show" is a compelling argument, it was not the only argument made: the dearth of reliable secondary sources which discuss these characters in any significant depth certainly is a compelling argument. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Whether it be a show that went for 20 seasons, or in this case 1, the characters are notable as well as important. Tracey Kibre, for example, not only apeared on TBJ, but also made special appearances on L&O and SVU. And that's barring the fact that the nominator who has been blocked as a SP, has obviously some conflict with the L&O Franchise, nominating many episodes for deletion, as well as redirecting. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any real-world sources which cover Tracy Kibre in significant detail. I'm sure she's a very interesting character for people who like the Law and Order franchise, but if that doesn't translate to significant non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources then there's no need to have a separate article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, my vote hasn't changed, regarding your opinion. There is no time limit on collecting notable sources. And also for the fact of the misplaced nomination for deletion - nominator had a clear COI with all L&O episode articles. Maybe s/he was a CSI fan. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 09:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, so it doesn't really matter whether your "vote has changed" or not. The deletion rationale was that there are no secondary sources to establish notability. If none are added then that rationale is obviously valid, especially given that Wikipedia's Law and Order fans are aware of this AfD and have a whole week to add sources. "No time limit" is not a reason to keep stubs with inadequate referencing as separate articles: the correct solution here is quite obviously to merge to the list article, and if sources are found in the future it can be re-split. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Clean bad faith nomination by Sock master. oknazevad (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While the nomination is tainted by its having been made by a sock, the deletion argument is cogent. Procedural close here would be actively counterproductive. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. The only solution to a sockmaster avoiding a block is to completely ignore what they say. Otherwise, blocks are meaningless and we as a community have no ability to to ensure standards of behavior. All edits made by a sock as part of a block evasion are inherently illegitimate and must be reverted without regard for the actual content. All nominations such as this must be closed ASAP, regardless of the merits of the argument. Blocks that aren't enforced are the same as no block at all, which the community has deemed a recepie for chaos. oknazevad (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out to Jclemens recently here, this is not a correct reading of policy, which does not automatically equate "sock" with "ban, revert on sight". Looking at it, that might even have concerned the same sock as in this case. We do not unperson people lightly around here, and it would be a waste of time to close this AfD procedurally only for it to be inevitably re-filed when sources do not get added to it in the future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tracey Kibre as some effort has been made to establish notability through third party sources. Merge the other two into main article unless notability can be demonstrated. Articles can always be separated at a later date if someone is willing to research and write them properly. The JPS ^{talk to me} 12:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all AFD is not the venue for this. Character articles are almost always merged if not independently notable, not deleted outright. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They actually were merged, and this was undone. Historially the only way to resolve this sort of thing has been taking the pages in question to AfD, as the only people who watch talk pages of article like this are inevitably people who feel that it is desperately important to have individual articles on them. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is there any precedent for fully protecting redirects for merged characters? I've dealt with this problem too, I've had to hammer down on stuff like Scorpia Rising (novel) (after the original title, no disambig, was merged into Alex Rider) and Peter Creedy and Eric Finch from V for Vendetta. Really, really annoying and aggravating to have to constantly visit the pages just because such edits undoing the merges can easily slip under the radar if you just put them on your watchlist. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, there's precedent. I'd expect that to be the outcome if the pages are merged: unprotection can be trivially requested if significant reliable sources do show up (and note that, contrary to the assertions above, not one of these three articles yet has any non-trivial secondary sourcing at all; the two at Tracey Kibre are trivial in the extreme, consisting of one sentence in a TV guide review and a trivial mention in a one-paragraph plot summary respectively). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:02, 27 July 2011 (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.