Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Les Nessman


 * 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. Clear consensus and reasons to keep ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Les Nessman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

unsourced fictional character bio that was appropriately redirected and has been inappropriately restored, twice. Jack Merridew 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A major character in an ensemble cast on a major program that was summarily redirected without notice or discussion. The same considerations that resulted in a "Keep" for the Bailey Quarters article applies with equal force here. Let some editors take the time to add references. Fladrif (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and then create a redirect to the WKRP in Cincinnati article where there is an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. - Josette (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? If so, weighing in on these discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again.Fladrif (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable character on long-running sitcom. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or stubbify. Almost completely unsourced attempt at literary criticism; only one sentence is sourced from a secondary source. While the topic might be notable, it's better to rewrite the article from scratch, based on secondary sources, rather than keep some random Wikipedian's essay around forever in the hope it is brought up to standards. I'm not convinced the topic passes WP:GNG based on that single source. Pcap ping  09:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Unreferenced and just a WP:PLOT recount. Ryan 4314   (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep major and sourcable character in a notable series, who has received coverage in reliable sources . No need to redirect, when the article can be trimmed some and improved. Surmountable issues are not a cause for deletion just because someone ELSE has not yet done the required work.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: All of the major characters are already covered in depth in the WKRP in Cincinnati article and in the respective articles on the actors. How much more information do we need on these rather, let's face it, trivial characters from the past, and why would we need this information in more than one location? - Josette (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Josette... you may think the one short paragraph at WKRP in Cincinnati about Les is "in depth", but I and many others do not. While certainly the current Les Nessman might benefit from some trimming, its total elimination is not the best answer when it can so easily be improved through normal editing.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The arguments being made here and in the other related AFD's in support of deletion are based on faulty premises. Problems with adding sources and revising tone, content and organization can be fixed; the articles can certainly be improved, a couple of different editors have taken a shot at them. Those are not reasons for deletion, merger or redirection. Notability of these principal characters as elements of a work of fiction, is clearly established by the extensive secondary coverage of them in multiple reliable sources, per Notability_(fiction). Arguments directed to editors' personal opinion as to the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of the series or any of the characters are utterly irrelevant. The extensive availabilty of reliable secondary sourcing on what are objectively iconic characters in a long-running award-winning series evidence to the contrary.Fladrif (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article. Each of these WKRP characters are icons within an iconic series.  Label it "bad" as you wish, the series survived for 5 years on a major network, longer in syndication then had revival efforts.  In particular, this character, Les Nessman is a radio standard--the newsman who has no clue what is going on.  Chi Chi Rodriguez.  It still gets a laugh.Trackinfo (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Quote: "There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article." (I am in agreement). Luigibob (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The problem with today's youth is that they spend too much time on Wikipedia and not enough time watching classic 1970s sitcoms. We are literally losing our TV heritage. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - What, is this a joke nomination? Major character that's still a household name 30 years later, on the order of Cliff Huxtable or Andy Griffith.  And references are sufficient to pass the notability guidelines.  And please read WP:RECENTISM. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2010 (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.