Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Casey


 * 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 close, please start a new AfD when the injunction has been lifted. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Shane Casey

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I was initially going to merge and redirect this to Minor characters in CSI:NY, however I don't know that there's enough here to support that. Shane Casey was a guest star on CSI: NY and while he had more of a role than the typical one episode guest star, I still don't think it meets WP:FICT and warrants inclusion here Travellingcari (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Travellingcari (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge? Did they stop doing Minor characters in ? Corpx (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * * Comment: that was my own bad link, it should have been Minor characters in CSI: NY. I just think there's a fuzzy line of guest star v. minor character and while he had a "vendetta" that slightly extended his arc, he was still a guest star. While I know other stuff isn't a valid argument, it has some reasoning in that characters who had similar roles (Frankie Mala, DJ Pratt) don't exist, why does this one need to? I've been unable to find any sources that demonstrate real world context other than "{Actor) appears on CSI:NY as (character}" if that makes sense Travellingcari (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep there's a moratorium on merging, per the arb com. DGG (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Link? Not disagreeing, I'd just like to have it so I'm aware of this. Guess the whole CSI:NY project is going on hold then and I'd like to follow it until the moratorium ends or is otherwise settled. Does this affect those that were closed as merge earlier this morning? Articles_for_deletion/Marisol_Delko and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_Elliott (CSI:_Miami)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The "moratorium", as far as I can read, is exclusive to the editors in the Arbcom case itself, is a temporary injunction to stop the edit warring happening there, and is not directed to "all editors". The link is here.  If it is to all editors in all discussions regarding fictional characters/episodes, where is that posted, DGG?    Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The temporary injunction applies to all Wikipedia editors while this arbitration case is open. --Pixelface (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I dont really know, nor do I know whether it even applies or should apply to consensus edits, such as here. The text at reads simply "no editor" without further qualification. I said what I did in the hope of some enlightenment myself. I find ArbCom unpredictable. Either, having decided they must intervene, they will throw it right back at the rest of the community--in which case i would suggest MASEM's revisions of the relevant pages, or they will make some strange decision that will require some odd adjustments in order to live with.  DGG (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just found the talk page related to this. Seems nobody knows... Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am little in the dark too, but I would say it is best to simply put this on hold until clarification in the case comes about. SorryGuy Talk  20:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Closure of this AFD may be subject to restrictions imposed by ARBCOM, as described at: Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Proposed_decision. JERRY talk contribs 05:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of coasrse that is just a proposal, and thus doesn't apply yet.  TJ   Spyke   05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not true. The injunction was enacted on 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC), with the 4 required support votes, and no oppose votes. JERRY talk contribs 07:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 05:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, MAYBE merge There are no sources for the article, so it fails WP:V. There is also no inidication of real world notability.  TJ   Spyke   05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment About the Arbcom case I'm pretty sure they won't go out and ban us or anything if we have a unanimous consensus on what to do with an article, also it is ultimately admins that close the AfDs so if they can always just tell us in the closing if we should hold out on the final decision.--Sin Harvest (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: "they can always just tell us", that's what I was doing... I relisted this solely because I have been told that it can not be closed as delete at this time due to the injunction. Continued discussion is encouraged in the meantime, but it is unlikely to get closed with a delete or merge outcome anytime soon. JERRY talk contribs 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:24, 15 February 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.