Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas 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.  Majorly   (hot!)  20:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nicolas Falco

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Only four appearances, and solely because Jesse L. Martin had to go do Rent. It seems that a lot of articles in the Law & Order series only exist because they are a detective, chief of police, or DA/EADA/ADA, which really isn't a good criteria. A Link to the Past (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of Law & Order characters per WP:FICT. Four episodes might be enough for a splashy guest star, but not for a fill-in. --Dhartung | Talk 19:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge (I'm ambivalent). Actually appeared in 5 episodes per article. But standard practice is to at least merge/redirect. --W.marsh 20:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to merging, but I AM opposed to keeping. I mean really, five appearances hardly warrants an article, especially when the character was not particularly important in any episode but one of those. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think he was one of the top 4 billed stars in the 4 episodes he appeared in as a fill-in, that's the nature of the show (2 cops, 2 district attorneys as the main stars of each show). Not sure if you were aware of that. It's not like he was just some other guy in the episode for 2-3 minutes, he was a core part of those episodes (I presume at least, I've only seen one of them). But I support either merge or an outright keep, just explaining why. --W.marsh 20:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I realize that he is in all of those episodes; however, I was not saying he was unimportant, I was saying that he was not PARTICULARLY important. And yes, I have indeed seen these episodes, including the episode where he is a suspect. Anyway, my stance is that being a detective does not warrant that they get an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, like I said, I support either decision. I'm fine with a merge if done cleanly. --W.marsh 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I can't agree with the merge premise. The role was major, notable, and regular; the longevity is not relevant.  Notwithstanding a current lack of sourcing, I assume that mention of this actor's participation was well discussed in many formats.  We have a well known actor playing a central character in a major TV production of long-standing.  Where is the question?  Add to that the impracticality of adding much more to the L&O main-page.  --Kevin Murray 22:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Who in the world suggested moving to the Law & Order article? The only merge that was EVER proposed was to the characters list. Anyway, I'm not sure why he's notable. Besides being a junior detective in the show, he's not important. If a character appears in only one episode and is only mentioned in one episode, longevity IS important, it is very important. Even if he was central to that one episode, it is not enough. Really, the L&O fans need to establish a better criteria than "put into a major role". Being a role that is often held by major characters does not make him major. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The article doesn't tell me enough to agree the role was a major one. It might've been, but I don't have enough info to determine that. Whatever happens, the material should clearly be kept in some form, so a deletion nomination is not the way to go. - Mgm|(talk) 08:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems fairly significant for the series. No reason to overcrowd the list. User:Dimadick
 * I have I no idea why this character could even be considered notable. Is the character notable, or is the position he is in notable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Would require a secondary source establishing notability in the real world and encyclopedic treatment to have an article. I'm willing to reconsider if those above can establish notability. No objection to listing him at List of Law & Order characters but that does not require a merge. --maclean 04:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep got an opening credit, was a major character in those 5 episodes. I can see no reason to downgrade his role. ThuranX 23:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Five appearances + no real world importance does NOT equal "important". He is particularly unimportant. I believe that Alfred Wentworth also appeared in the opening credits, do you say that he's important too? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alfred Wentworth should be unrelated to this discussion for a couple of reasons. 1. He was in the Pilot. Pilots notably often have different characters/actors than the regular series.  2. He's a different character, and he was a part of the series before it had a solidified format.  - Phuff 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep his character was major enough that without consulting his imdb episode list I wouldn't have known he was only in 5 or 6 episodes. He stepped into a major role which was a solidified part of the regular cast.  After umpteen seasons, even a 5 episode stint in one of the major tropes of the show makes the character major. Should also be kept for completeness. - Phuff 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User has made very few edits
 * Law & Order is not the exception to the notability guidelines just because it's popular. Same with Pokémon, Star Wars, and Star Trek. Is he a well-known character? A well-liked one? Is he verifiably popular? Or is it just that he appears in a major role, rather than being a major character? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2007 (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.