Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redshirt (character)

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. And please, somebody cleanup the article, it's in a mess indeed. - Mailer Diablo 16:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redshirt (character)

del a classical, textbook violation of no original research. Of corse, red shirt are abound, but show me an external article in a reputable source that introduces and discussed "redshirt" as stock character. `'mikkanarxi 17:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After telling us that the phenomenon started in Star Trek, the article goes on to list example after example where characters were dressed in anything other than red! This whole article is pointless. Emeraude 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep arguments about OR for things that are widely known rarely impress me. And here's at least one [1] documented usaged printed in a Law Journal. Not to mention sources like [2][3] There's even a movie. [4]. And there's a book "All I Really Need to Know I Learned from Watching Star Trek" that has a chapter about it. Also apparently a Starlog article, but I'm not sure what issue it was in. If you want to rewrite or improve the article, do so. Or ask other people to do it. I might not even object to a merge, but calling for deletion? Seems a bit excessive. FrozenPurpleCube 17:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, colleague, you missed the target 100%. The first of your refs mentions "poor fellow in the red shirt" so what? Indeed it is an unnamed FIRS. Does it say that it is a stock character? No. Your refs 2,3 are not reliable sources fior wikipedia. Finally, The movie is a parody of Star Trek. It is a primary source in our context and certainly does not introduce the notion or literary criticism "the redshirt is a stock character". Etc. To draw a conclusion is original researh. `'mikkanarxi 17:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recognizing widespread usage demonstrates that this article is not creating a theory which is what OR is meant to avoid. The fact is, no matter how much you try to claim OR, the real problem is not that it's OR, as there's no theory or speculation involved that serves to advance any position. Sure, I agree that there should be better sources. That's a reason to clean-up, not to delete. BTW, the word conclusion is not used in WP:OR at all. There are times when conclusions are necessary to write good articles. FrozenPurpleCube 17:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread usage means nothing. The term may be used in numerous context. The specific theory that redsirt is a stock character needs to be referenced, not the usage of the word. `'mikkanarxi 18:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I must disagree. If we can see lots of uses of the term Redshirt, then clearly it's not a novel idea unique to Wikipedia, or any one person's cause. My advice remains the same, look for sources, don't argue for deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognized stock character which is also considered a cliche. Article can be improved and better sourced, but that's not criteria for AFD, in my opinion. 23skidoo 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo. Danny Lilithborne 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though the article mentions mostly star trek that doesn't mean that it hasn't been used else where in science-fiction. Tarret 20:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Major Cleanup/Move to Red shirt (Star Trek) I'm willing to accept that this is a Star Trek reference that has gained some traction in broader pop culture. However, this article needs deep deep scrubbing for undue weight and excessive trivia (and the mass of original research that goes along with this) as well as at least an attempt at proper referencing. There doesn't seem to be much evidence for the "redshirt" term either (so suggest move). All the usages appear to be references to Star Trek, and the term appears to have no significance beyond this (i.e. not in general usage as a term for a disposable stock character for other programs). I'm slapping a toomuchtrivia tag on this article. Bwithh 20:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best choice for the first WikiWorld I have to say. (though I welcome the WikiWorld concept) Bwithh 21:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wikipedia would seem to have a very heavy Star Trek leaning due to the overlap with geekdom, and geekdom interests. ( BTW I consider myself one of those geeks) The term red shirt is clearly well used by both Star Trek fans and some of the general population. But I would submit that if I were to take off my Vulcan ears and look at it from a broader perspective, what we have is a Sacrificial lamb. Note that there is a small amount of information already there. This article could be renamed to something like Sacrificial lamb (fiction) and developed with a broader viewpoint. -- Whpq 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable concept.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Extremely notable concept. Needs to be improved, not deleted! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for heaven's sake! Poor Ensign Redshirt is an important concept in sci-fi, especially Star Trek, which was itself a cultural phenomenon. Needs massive cleanup, not deletion. K. Lástocska 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well-known and commonly used term in entertainment. This is not original research. Just needs references, that's all. Wavy G 23:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Redshirt is a common term. Plus, it is the highlight of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-11/WikiWorld.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A cultural icon of the TV extra killed off at the start of the show. Very noteworthy. -Husnock 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After all, the red shirt always dies, right? ;-D --EEMeltonIV 05:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework. It's because a standard term, but some of the article is a little too unsourced. Makgraf 05:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs extensive cleanup and sourcing work though. Nehrams2020 08:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — no reason provided for deletion. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was very surprised to see this up for deletion after the wonderful WikiWorld cartoon. Cultural references abound, and the term has transcended its Star Trek origins. --Canley 10:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with keep, but also with clean-up. -- Simon Cursitor 12:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs improvement, but that's not grounds for deletion. This is a notable concept in fiction and is widely referenced. Just get better sources for the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|right|100px|Kirk ain't no redshirtComment If it is so notable and widely used, then WHERE THE HELL ARE REFERENCES from solid sources in which movie critics say it is a stock character ? Oh, and this is a proof that kaptain Kirk din't wear red shirt (only red pantaloons). `'mikkanarxi 16:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a use by the Chicago Tribune's TV critic: [5] (a blog, I know, but an official one of the Trib).--Milo H Minderbinder 17:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't can we find usages of the term, it's can we find discussion of the term as a term. The answer is: probably yes. I shall check my books this evening and see what I can find. The use of a "redshirt" to refer to non-Star Trek usages may be harder to source, that case just warrants rewriting the intro. Morwen - Talk 17:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example on the new york times, I can't read the whole article but from the preview it looks like they talk about the term and define it [6]. Anyone have a NYT membership? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-13 18:46Z
Keep, while the article may lack references, it can easily be fixed. -- Zanimum 20:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean Up Yes the page has gotten to unwieldy, but deletion is not the answer. It certatinly need to be focused more. If we can keep the lesser know Stormtrooper Effect we certainly should keep the more well known version. EnsRedShirt 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and eliminate the OR. JChap2007 23:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - AfD-mongers seem to have a militant institutional bias against popular culture articles or articles that they judge to be "fancrufty." I believe this is a reflection of the same kind of EB-ish thinking that Wikipedia is supposed to reject, as Wikipedia is not paper. Wl219 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- <Shrug>. The articles I listed for AfD can be counted on my fingers and toes :-) In your anti-deletionist crusade you fail to see my major objection: lack of serious references. Everyone writes "keep/cleanup", but I don't see any flurry of activity to do the second part. It remains full or unreferenced bullshit as before, only some laughable footnotes added to illustrate usage cases, in best traditions of original research. `'mikkanarxi 00:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep fairly notable in pop culture (even I have heard of the term, and I've never seen an episode of Star Trek). Needs extensive sourcing though, I completely agree with the nom in that it currently stands as original research and fancruft. riana_dzasta 08:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs cleanup, but the term is clearly notable[7] beyond Trek fandom. — edgarde 07:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cartoons good. Classic comix good. Ancheta Wis 03:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept is notable enough, even if some reworking is necessary. Danaman5 06:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup the article is crap, filled with original research. Please clean it up significantly. The article should in the end be 1/3 the size it currently is. --70.48.243.22 00:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup as agreeing with 23skidoo Admiral Memo 05:39, 17 December 2006 (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.