Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronnie Lake


 * 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. Nothing here to warrant keeping this as a stand-alone article.  BLACK KITE  15:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ronnie Lake

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Recurring character on CSI: Crime Scene Investigation that an overzealous editor gave her own article after rumors began which have since proven false that she was going to replace Jorja Fox on the show. Fails WP:FICTION with no secondary source coverage. Redfarmer (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Since I'm apparently the "overzealous editor" referred to above, I suppose I should comment. My recollection is that this material, devoted only to describing the character, was inappropriately in the article on the actress.  If it was to be in wikipedia at all, it belonged in an article on the character, rather than one one the actress.


 * I have no firm opinion on whether the article should remain. However, I'd like to point out that if projections are correct, the Lake character will become a recurring character on par with the Sara Sidle character, now that Sidle's character is no longer part of the show. If that's the case, and the article is deleted, then if someone puts the article back, a few months of work will be lost and need to be re-created.  I acknowledge the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy, and that the projections (oh, heck let's call them what they are: "rumors") themselves do not confer sufficient notability, in and of themselves, to justify an article.  But if the decision is to delete this article, I would suggest that any editor who strongly believes that it should be kept squirrel away a copy of the article in its present state, so the work doesn't need to be re-done in the event the character turns into a major character as expected. -- TJRC (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you quote anything reliable that would suggest this is the case? I had a prod on the article for months with no response that someone later removed. I've not been able to find anything reliable which would suggest that the character is going to become a major character and, as it is, the article wouldn't pass WP:FICTION anyway because she hasn't had coverage in secondary sources. Redfarmer (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Per Rumor, "A rumor or rumour (see spelling differences), is 'an unverified account or explanation of events circulating from person to person and pertaining to an object, event, or issue in public concern'"  -- TJRC (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, as you've admitted it's a rumor, it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL. Also, the potential of losing work is not an argument for keep per WP:LOSE. Redfarmer (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's consistent with what I've said. You: "as you've admitted it's a rumor, it does not pass WP:CRYSTAL."  Me: "I acknowledge the WP:CRYSTALBALL policy, and that the projections (oh, heck let's call them what they are: "rumors") themselves do not confer sufficient notability, in and of themselves, to justify an article."  You: "Also, the potential of losing work is not an argument for keep per WP:LOSE." Me: "I would suggest that any editor who strongly believes that it should be kept squirrel away a copy of the article in its present state, so the work doesn't need to be re-done in the event the character turns into a major character as expected."  Are you somehow construing that I'm presenting an argument to keep?  Although I have a week opinion toward keep (hence the week keep), I don't really care much: "I have no firm opinion on whether the article should remain." -- TJRC (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need to quote what you said a few paragraphs up. I'm only trying to understand, if you don't care one way or the other, and if you acknowledge it violates multiple notability requirements, why you are still expressing a weak keep... Per WP:NOT, this isn't a democratic vote; we decide by consensus based on policy arguments. Redfarmer (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I needed to quote just to juxtapose your own and my comments to point out their similarity, because I wasn't sure why you were arguing with a position that's pretty close to yours. You seem to be confusing my near-apathy with advocacy (you're using phrases like "you admit"), which it very definitely is not.
 * To address your points: I believe, but not strongly, that the appearance of the character so far is sufficient notability to justify the article. That alone would be a sufficient basis for my week keep.  In addition, the suggestion (whose veracity is admittedly uncertain) that the character will appear more, does not lessen that.
 * I think you misunderstand my comment about lost work. I have not suggested that losing work is a reason to keep an article.  I have suggested that losing work is a reason for anyone who strongly believes the article should remain to keep a copy of it, so that if it turns out to be an appropriate article later, they can re-add the lost material.
 * All that being said, were it not for the writers' strike we'd probably already know what the character's status is. My general sense is, what's the hurry to delete now?
 * So, all that is the basis for my week keep. You may not agree with it, and I don't expect you to.  I'm not making an argument, I'm just explaining to you my basis, since you asked.  I'd rather the article stayed around.  But I don't really care that much.  But you asked.  -- TJRC (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I should note, per the commenter above's concern that she may still become a major character, she has not appeared in an episode since Jorja Fox left the show, thus making the number of episodes she has appeared in five. Redfarmer (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - with reference to the previous work being lost if this is deleted and a new article is needed - very little that is on Wikipedia is ever permanently deleted. It would be very easy to restore anything here if needed should the decision be to delete at this time with no prejudice to recreation if the character does indeed prove to become a regular feature of the show. Grutness...wha?  23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete no refs no reliable sources no notability - and absurd to boot. NBeale (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, no notability at all. There should be a way of speedy deleting all these non-notable fictional character's articles.--Yamanbaiia(free hugs!) 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No there shouldn't. We need as many eyes as possible to look these over, in case someone knows of information that can confirm notability. I think we speedy too much as it is. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as minor character, or merge to an appropriate CSI character list if exists. No, this isn't speedy eligible for good reason, but we should have been able to get consensus earlier. --Dhartung | Talk 07:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 18:50, 27 January 2008 (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.