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--JForget 00:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Wolenczak[edit]

Lucas Wolenczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a character that does not have real world information to establish notability. It is currently covered within the main article, and there is no current assertion for improvement. TTN (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I call into question why articles such as Jean-Luc Picard, Randy Marsh, Niles Crane, Dr. Who, and other fictional character articles are allowed to exist, yet, you're targeting this one. Explain. Kyle C Haight (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator seems to try to illustrate a point. Nominator hasn't even suggested the possibility of adressing the issue through discussion but started page blanking and redirecting and now an AfD after meeting opposition. The subject is NOT discussed is the main article. There are rooms for improvements, by making a List of seaQuest DSV characters which in my eyes has enough notability. It should go to the main article but that would make the article too big, therefor a separate article could be created. I'm opposed to this AfD but advocate efforts to merge single character articles into a List as I do agree that a single character from the show does not meet notability criteria. However, as pointed out, I see room for improvement.--Fogeltje (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -What matters is an assertion of notability through referencing, not a "feeling" something has notability. If you can promise you can demonstrate notability with a little time, that's one thing, but to keep for some indefinite possibility that there are references? No. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere am I saying it should be kept indefinitely. In itself this article has no notability but should be merged into a new article with a List of characters. But that is not a matter for AfD but for merging. I feel that nominator is violating WP:POINT. He has attempted nothing to solve the issue, simply mass blanks and redirects and resorts to AfD when he doesn't get things done his way. My keep vote is not indefinite keeping of this article, but to provide some time to figure out what to do with the article, which would be in my eyes, creating a List of characters and merge shortened bios there (adding the list to the article o the show, which is notable, wouldn't work because that article would be blown out of proportion, therefore a separate List of seaQuest DSV characters is justified).--Fogeltje (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks out-of-universe info to pass WP:FICT and lacks sources to pass WP:N. I'm not opposed to merging a small amount of this content into the main article for the show, but most of it looks pretty much like plot summary. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 21:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Changing vote based on improvements. This is the problem with bios of fictional people. Once the show is no longer seen in reruns (as is the case with SeaQuest DSV), someone says "no real-world notability". Jimmy Neutron, popular now, but after his show is replaced on Nick, he will be as forgotten as "Twister" and the other kids on, say, "Rocket Power". In truth, most characters aren't notable. I enjoyed watching SeaQuest in the 90s, both on NBC and later on SciFi, and I don't recall that much backstory on his character (or Captain Bridger, also up for nomination). Born in 2002? I'll buy that, the show was set in 2018, he was a teenager. Was there an episode about his birthday? I don't recall that one. Things like this are covered by (and speculated upon by) internet sites that serve the fandom of this series. An article about the television show can have a section on Lucas Wolenczak, albeit not one with the intimate level of detail here. Mandsford (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is a well written and detailed article. Adding it to the main seaQuest article would either make it to long or cut to much info. This guy is a little merge crazy. (Dr. Stantz (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

If I added in some background information on the character from a "real-world" perspective (as I've done with the Bridger and Westphalen articles), would that be satisfactory? Kyle C Haight (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:FICT. Eusebeus (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets no current criterion for deletion. WP:FICTION lacks consensus. Major characters in notable work have notability and can be sourced from the work itself. DGG (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: Real-world background information has been added. The original complaint no longer has validity. Kyle C Haight (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid it will still not satisfy WP:N and ever will. Short character bios can be placed into a List of seaQuest DSV characters in my eyes. This would have to be placed within the article of the show, which is notable. However, that article would become unnecessarily long so a separate list can be justified. However, nominator hasn't even attempted anything like this and is simply blanking and redirecting and then taking it to AfD when he fails. My vote is not a vote to keep it indefinitely but to keep it around for a while so we can properly discuss on how to keep the information and possibly merge it into something different.--Fogeltje (talk) 10:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Kyle definitely needs to add sourcing, but I'll buy his argument that the character was (a) adored by teenage girls (b) despised by sci-fi fans for the same reason as child prodigy Wesley Crusher had been. I had no idea that Jonathan Brandis committed suicide (hanged himself) in 2003, and though that information hasn't yet been put in the background, that itself indicates that there is even more to be added besides what Mr. Haight has put in so far. I encourage everyone to look at the article again (the Background section is what's added). It was enough to make me go from "delete" to "keep". This is a step in the right direction. Mandsford (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep apparently important recurring character in the series. sourcing can and should be added, per Mandsford. DGG (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eusebeus. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 19:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebeus actually wants the page deleted, did you mean to say Delete? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that

  A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

  The extensive media coverage of Lucas Wolenczak in multiple reliable sources cited in Lucas_Wolenczak#References clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the general notability guideline. Moreover, Lucas_Wolenczak#Background provides extensive evidence of Lucas Wolenczak's real-world notability. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the general notability guideline through objective evidence. John254 00:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Merge - Yes. Delete - No. --ShakataGaNai ^Talk 04:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.