Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Falco


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick Falco

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable fictional character who appeared in the Law & Order series for all of 4-6 episodes (the character article says one thing, the character list says another). Really too minor to even merge to the character list. Completely fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:MOS-TV. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — --  Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, regular character, appeared as one of the main character and billed in opening credits for four episodes (not too shabby considering he was only the fourth actor at the time to do so), played by an extremely notable actor. He was replacing Jesse L. Martin at the time so Martin could film Rent so there is no doubt enough news coverage to constitute a pretty good stub. Just in passing there is still an interview archived on Law & Order's web site where he discusses his character and his fifth and final (to date) appearance on the show. As pointed out in the last AfD, deletion is not the way to go here under any circumstances anyways. There is valid information on a regular character who appeared in the opening credits. Redfarmer (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On top of all that, WP:WAF and WP:MOS-TV say nothing about notability, which is what AfD gauges, nor does WP:N give guidelines for fictional characters, which are still extremely controversial. Plus, I would point out that this AfD was only brought in an effort to convince me that Kim Greylek, a regular on Law & Order: Special Victims Unit should not have her own page as I am protesting an unrelated seeming unilateral decision. Redfarmer (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this AfD was brought because you kept saying "well go look at this article" so I did. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I said look at the AfD, which is indeed evidence that wholesale deletion of fictional character articles like this is not uncontroversial. That is why it is always extremely hard to pass anything in the way of a notability guideline for fiction, because of its controversy. Even those in the last AfD who agreed with the nom that this shouldn't have its own article disagreed that it should be deleted, but the keeps won. Redfarmer (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as wholly unreferenced for 2.5 years. Heyman Standard for this AfD would require reliable sourcing, as well as meeting the "significant coverage" aspect of the Notability guideline. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 01:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * An article should not be judged based on the inability to act by the editors involved. Look for WP:POTENTIAL instead and judge the thing on its own merits. WP:BEFORE says deletion nominators should look for sources before nominating something, so it's reasonable to assume that articles should not be deleted unless such an effort is made, especially when said article isn't causing serious BLP or copyright violations. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I added a ref and sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Added another in the external links that can be incorporated in the article. Redfarmer (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The character article is fine. No reason to mass delete every character article out there, nothing gained by doing so.  And it now has references too.   D r e a m Focus  01:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Enough out of universe content to pass notability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:N, WP:OR, etc. Take it to the LO wiki. Can anyone really imagine any other encyclopedia saying that this was a good idea? — Bdb484 (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think it's a "good idea" is irrelevant. There is no WP:OR in the article and the only criteria that applies to the article in WP:N is that it have reliable secondary sourcing, which it does. Redfarmer (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that it doesn't. There are no sources that I believe the WP community would consider reliable. There's an NYT link, but it's to a listing of shows that are on that night. It's not an in-depth look at Falco, just a two-sentence blurb about what happens in that night's episode. Then there's the Slant piece, which agains gives Falco a passing mention — and even then only to say how unnotable his characater was. Half of the other sources are LO episodes themselves (and anything cited to the episodes constitutes WP:OR), and the rest are press releases republished by Futon Critic 1 2. If promotion by NBC is the standard by which LO characters' notability is judged, then I'd say we should keep it. If WP:N is the standard, I'd say not. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A total of two sources are to episodes, and that does not constitute OR, merely quoting primary sources to establish fictional biographical data. If we disallowed sources from episodes, I dare say that many of our Featured Articles and Good Articles would be deleted. You're setting a standard much higher than that accepted to by the community. Redfarmer (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If watching something personally and then writing your own account of what happened isn't original research, I'm not sure what is. Either way, there hasn't been any coverage of the character that satisfies the first four WP:GNG criteria. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OR would be if I interpreted what I watched, as with the sentence that I deleted that stated Falco was in the same mold as Chris Noth's Mike Logan. OR is not watching the episode and then reporting what happened--otherwise most episode guides would be goners. If you think it's OR, you sure have a twisted definition of OR because, by the same logic, I could say that reading a book and reporting on its plot was also OR--as most articles on books on WP do. You should probably read WP:PRIMARY. Redfarmer (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Summarizing a work of fiction is no different than summarizing a work of non-fiction, which is what we do everytime we summarize a ref without doing a direct quote. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has 4 references to three reliable sources. It contains real world information on why the character was created and how it was received. Meets all the guidelines fictional characters tend to fail. - Mgm|(talk) 08:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research/synthesis, no real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How is this OR or syntheis? Everything is referenced and the two sentences which could be construed as OR have been removed. Redfarmer (talk) 11:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even without that, it still has no real-world notability. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources from newspapers don't demonstrate real-world notability? Redfarmer (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Mgm - multiple independant sources. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete minor series character, not even close to notable enough for own article. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to revisions since nomination, now clearly notable enough for its own article or at worst for a merge and redirect. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something in that revision? It seems like the only thing it's adding is the NBC press release reprints, which I didn't think were considered reliable or indepenent sources. — Bdb484 (talk) 04:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep because of revisions showing notability. Ikip (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. notable, referenced etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - when all of the "main characters" on the show have articles, it doesn't make sense to not have an article on one of them. By the way, to clarify the four or six episode thing, he was a main character for four episodes.  The actor had previously appeared in a supporting role playing someone else.  The character appeared as a suspect in an episode a year after the four where he was a main character. --B (talk) 23:42, 24 May 2009 (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.