Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Paisley (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Dick Miller. Black Kite 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Paisley

This is just a collection of minor characters in films that share the same name without any sources to provide any sort of connection. TTN (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dick Miller. The fact he played a character with the same name on at least 4 occasions in different works of fiction might not be material for an article, but it certainly is worth including in the actor's bio. I have no reason to disbelieve IMDB on this. It's likely more reliable sources can be found. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, merge the relevant information, per TTN and MGM. Drm|^(talk) 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move or redirect to Dick Miller. I am not knowledgeable enough in this area to gauge if "Walter Paisley" is much of a search term; Google doesn't support much of a claim to notability and so I'm leaning toward move, but I'll gladly agree to a redirect if folks who know the horror industry think the name is worth preserving. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a highlight to the merge in above comment. Remember that we cannot delete the history if we retain material. According to the GFDL we need to retain it for proper attribution. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's a bunch of references to confirm at least part of this entry. [1] [2][3][4] - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources amount to nothing; it's trivial coverage. The article still isn't worth keeping, or merging. Finding sources wouldn't aide a merge though, as they should be put directly into the main article, not stuck into this one first, just to game the system to preserve the history. Jay32183 (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Trivial or not, it proves the information is true and verifiable (a lot of facts in wikipedia articles are referenced by trivial mentions because notability - which requires non-trivial mentions of the article subject - are already coverage by other sources). Preserving the history has nothing to do with gaming the system. Giving proper attribution for someone's edits is actually policy. (GFDL). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, deletion policy states that deletion is a last resort for material that cannot be salvaged. It obviously can. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The GFDL is not an issue if no content is copied. If you're hoping for merge, adding content to this article and copying it to another would be extremely bad faith. Trivial coverage should not be included at all, non-trivial does not equal significant, it could be moderate. Also, lots of trivial does not add up to non-trivial. With this article deletion is the best option, we don't have to discuss everything, that's not what "last resort" means, and merging is not salvaging the article. Jay32183 (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's salvaging the content rather than the article and providing proper credit to the person who started it. Sources only need to be non-trivial if they need to support a separate article. For example: if a source is trivial but mentions a subjects birthday (and the subject has been established as notable through other means) than the trivial source can still be used to verify the birth date. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do not see how combining the different roles in unrelated films is helpful, unless there is sourced discussion of the repeated use of the name. If he is a major character in any of them, it might justify an article, &, if the other roles are minor, they could be mentioned there. DGG (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expanded; it has been pointed out to me on my talk page that there appears to be a discussion of the significance of the character itself in its different manifestations at [5]. The article would need considerable expansion to clarify the significance. DGG (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — A notable in-joke, like See You Next Wednesday or Chuck the Plant. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- What makes the joke notable? Jay32183 (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jay32183 (talk · contribs) is making up policy, see User_talk:MacGyverMagic#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Paisley (2nd nomination) He said: "Since the original author could not be bothered to find sources for the content, s/he does not deserve credit. We should not preserve the content. If you have sources for expanding another article do that, don't copy this and see if the sources match up. Jay32183 (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)" - Mgm|^(talk) 21:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the least bit relevant to how this discussion should be closed. I did not present that to you as policy. I told you that because you're trying to preserve content that we don't want to use and that simply does not make sense. You didn't want this as a stand alone article either and without sources there's nothing to merge. Adding sources just to merge the article doesn't make sense when you could use the sources to expand the target article directly. It's actually easier that way, there's less double-checking. Trying to sway the AFD because someone involved made comments elsewhere is wholly inappropriate. Jay32183 (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It might be easier, but since you are saying I shouldn't be doing that either just because the original author didn't provide sources, your comment on my talk page was relevant. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, I said to go ahead and expand Dick Miller based on what you found. You plan to list your sources and not add any of your own research. What I don't want you to do is to try and retroactively justify this content. But go ahead and create your own. Just do it at Dick Miller and not Walter Paisley since you aren't trying to preserve a stand-alone article. Jay32183 (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above comment, I've struck my accusation. It seems to no longer be relevant. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; more or less synthesis of several unrelated characters who happen to have the same name. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/redirect. This does seem to be an inside joke of sorts for Dick Miller but the entire article would be a well written subsection of Dick Miller as it doesn't seem that notable on its own. Other sourcing interviews may pop up to further explain notability but the content can grow in that article which is quite stubby. -- Banjeboi 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect. For the reasons mentionned above. Laurent paris (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reminds me of Earl McGraw. Could do with some "fleshing out" tho, few more refs and definitely some more commentary from Dick Miller. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:03, 8 December 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.