Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Romano


 * 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 delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Robert Romano

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this is a WP:NOTABLE character. It has been tagged for notability for over 7 years, unresolved. My initial attempt at resolution was to redirect but this was reverted. Cast of ER would probably be the best redirect target. I think it should be deleted or redirected. Boleyn (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sending WP:APPNOTE to and. Boleyn (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should place the question of this entry's existence into the much larger context of such proposals/essays (both active and inactive) as WP:Notability (fictional characters), WP:Notability (fiction), WP:Notability (fiction)/proposed-12-9-07, WP:Plot-only description of fictional works and the related WikiProject Soap Operas guidelines on character articles. Mindful of arguments set forth under WP:Other stuff exists, we should also note that this 13,291 byte entry was singled out for no discernible reason from among the 25 other character entries at Category:ER (TV series) characters (in April, the nominator had deleted and redirected to List of supporting characters in ER, another singled-out entry, Michael Gallant, which contained 8,118 bytes). It should also be noted that both entries have corresponding articles in Italian Wikipedia, while Robert Romano has an additional interwiki in Swedish Wikipedia. Moreover, List of supporting characters in ER has no character detail for any of its entries, thus depriving Wikipedia readers of all plotline history research contained within the original articles. All WP:PRODs and banners (that one may see appended to entries of numerous fictional characters) proclaim similar "original research", "general notability", "real-world context", "too long or excessively detailed" fault-findings which should be attended with judicious editing, rather than wholesale deletion. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 21:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment The 'discernible reason' this was examined and then nominated is because I came across it while looking through CAT:NN; but that has nothing to do with the notability or otherwise of this character. It was also not nominated because it needs cleanup; that's irrelevant too. It is also not hugely relevant that the article List of supporting characters in ER (which is not the article I suggested as best redirect) has limited detail. That article (or any) could be expanded, or this article could merge to an article - but not that one as it doesn't mention Robert Romano. All of that is just fluff - does this meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines? That is what we should be focused on. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The "no discernible reason" reference was made in relation to the unexplained singling out for WP:PROD/redirecting of this particular character among the 26 characters listed at Category:ER (TV series) characters. Are we to assume that the other 25 characters are, indeed, notable, or that we have not gotten around to them as yet, or that nominating all 26 at once would be excessively burdensome? The nomination did, indeed, suggest redirecting Robert Romano to Cast of ER, which is another article with extremely limited or non-existent character detail, but the reason for mentioning List of supporting characters in ER was that the previous (over three months ago, on April 1) deletion/redirect of an ER character, Michael Gallant, was to List of supporting characters in ER, not to Cast of ER. It should be noted as a relevant detail that unlike this nomination, which provides opportunity for a discussion, the Michael Gallant article, which had existed since June 2006, consisted of 7,863 bytes (including a detailed infobox), and still has a corresponding article (with photograph) in Italian Wikipedia, was deleted/redirected without a discussion, although it was not tagged for WP:Speedy Deletion. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. You can assume whatever you'd like, Roman. Me, I figure the problem is time. It would be great to delete all of the fan-cruft at once. But we can't. It would be great to apply judicious editing to trim down in-universe, original fan-written essays from every needed article, all at once. But time prevents everything from happening all at once. Further, we're obliged to evaluate each subject and article on its own merits and proceed from there. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Each Wikipedian who cares to participate here will make his or her own assumptions, but we can take the nominator's own words at face value, "because I came across it while looking through CAT:NN". It all returns to the ever-present inclusionist/deletionist arguments and the drive-by tagging of all character articles, particularly those from pop culture. The reworked maxim seen at the opening of The Song of Bernadette can be adapted here without the import of its theological significance, "for those who believe, no explanation is necessary, for those who do not, no explanation is possible". For deletionists, no TV character (described within detailed plot outlines which represent the specifics of such character's existence) will satisfy General Notability Guidelines. As for the problem of time, it would take the same measure of days, with the same arguments, to vote upon redirecting (not quite as final as deletion, but for all intents amounting to the same effect) of all 26 ER character articles as it would for this randomly chosen single one. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 08:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a problem. If I do, really, it's just your own decision framework. You've categorized people into two groups, then you've decided that people each of those groups always behave in a certain way. If you believe people only behave in a certain way, then you're not going to accept any evidence that they don't behave their certain way. That's what you're doing here: denying that someone who you think is in one of your self-declared groups isn't behaving in the way you think that group behaves, and leaving no room for the possibility that your categorization and presumption is simply incorrect. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no evidence of notability provided in the article, and the subject fails the WP:GNG. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete on the basis that there do not appear to be sufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N or WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete We need more than one RS. ~ EDDY  ( talk / contribs )~ 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep the article as it is right now is poorly written, but the subject of the article itself surely meets Notability. The article needs major trimming and real world sections (reception, awards, etc.) -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  16:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Tony the Tiger. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The keep !voters have not presented any source-based evidence. I personally was unable to find multiple reliable sources which establish the subject's notability. Most simply seem to be passing mentions. Therefore, I've concluded that this article fails WP:GNG, and as a side note a good deal of other fictional character articles likely fail the guideline. -- Biblio worm  17:08, 12 July 2015 (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.