Talk:Leonardo Leonardo

From VfD:
Re: Leonardo Leonardo

All judgements of the show aside, we're talking about a fictional character who appeared in a minor work of fiction that lasted two episodes. He's no Sideshow Bob or even Sideshow Mel, the latter of whom doesn't even have his own article. Furthermore, there are no articles dedicated to any other characters who appear in the film or the cartoon, save Jay and Silent Bob who have appeared in numerous projects. If Leonardo Leonardo wants his own article, he should wait in line behind Dante Hicks, Randall, and the actors who portray them. Potentially, this character might resurface if the proposed Clerks sequel or animated movie were to come about, but that's a big if. --Feitclub 21:59, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Clerks (television show), and then write that article. This is my oddest vote yet, but I seriously think that that show should have an article but that it doesn't merit breakout articles. A good start would be a short intro followed by the merged content of Leonardo Leonardo. &mdash;Rory &#9786; 01:37, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect: Man, this is hard. It's a good article -- very good.  This is where principles come in.  I always want minor characters to be lumped back in, even when I like the characters. Geogre 02:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Move to Clerks (cartoon) or Clerks (television show) (whichever you like) and fill in the rest.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: Well-written article about a minor character in a minor work of fiction. Verifiable and factual.  I agree that other articles on the show would be more "useful", but I don't have any problems with this one. I spend my time writing articles on specific quantities used in quantum information theory (say, the joint quantum entropy).  I don't see that this is any different.  If we have an infinite number of fans, let them write a whole lot about fictional works. -- Creidieki 10:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge, no redirect to Clerks. Not notable. --Improv 20:26, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we aren't allowed to merge without redirect, because it deletes authorship information (Deletion policy. Does nonnotability make an article a candidate for deletion?  I'm hearing that a lot, but it doesn't seem to be part of the Deletion policy; the only references I can find are that articles which are nonverifiable or nonobjective.  I think the series is well-known enough that verifiability isn't a problem. -- Creidieki 21:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The idea that we are not allowed to merge without redirect is a popular opinion, but it's certainly not policy. Authorship information can be transferred to the article's talk page (by anyone), and page histories can be merged (by admins). - Nunh-huh 01:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, it's written under Deletion policy, so I think it is policy, but what you say makes sense. -- Creidieki 06:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You have to read the whole sentence there "Note that merge into article and delete is not a valid option (except for public domain text) unless the information on authorship of the content is somehow preserved." Mentioning the author on the talk page (or, frankly, in the edit summary) is enough to preserve the information on authorship. - Nunh-huh 06:06, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You're correct. I reworded the policy to make that clearer; it sounds like I wasn't the only one who's had problems ^_^.  Thanks.  -- Creidieki 06:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion