731:. Just because this editor felt the article might lack the credentials to be an article is not reason to engage in attacks, no matter how subtle or unintended, toward the nominator. Its pretty clear there is consensus to keep, but that does not give license to attack someone for the nomination. Please remember to keep your ideas focused on the article, not the person making the nomination. Peace.
675:
While I see your point, keep in mind that nominating an article for deletion in order to force its improvement is essentially an abuse of process. Unfortunately, it's an abuse that too often goes unchecked, and those of us who would much rather work within the confines of proper practice are faced
405:
This whole thing is null if someone just will find the real-world notability that so many say he does and just add it to the article. I said he is so popular he should have real world notability. Character development, critical acclaim, fan reception, cultural impact, casting/development. These
201:
All characters from major motion pictures do not have their own articles. The character needs real-world notability, e.g casting, critical acclaim, fan reception, character development. Many of the other Trek articles, including Picard for instance, have had real-world notability added to their
889:
as a major film character in a major film in a major franchise that has articles on far less notable characters. I have to echo the comment above that nominating any article for AFD just to spur improvments is an inappropriate and troubling way of doing things. AFD (and PROD) nominations are too
576:
felt this article was a candidate for deletion does not make it their personal responsibility to conduct research. The purpose of this forum is to reach a consensus on nominations that are either appropriate or possibly in error. Please don't take this personally. I just don't think that its
660:
and has given a lot of referenced information to the article. In addition, all of this is written in an out-of-universe style. The article really has improved a lot in the three and a half hours that it has been up for deletion. I may disagree with deleting it, but apparently putting it up for
572:, I'm not sure that this is the proper response here. It is incumbent on all editors to do research in areas where they have experience and background, as well as the responsibility of all editors to nominate articles which potentially don't belong for nomination. Just because
661:
deletion was the spur needed to get someone to do something about the lack of real-world content. Unless someone can find something seriously wrong with the changes, or can find another thing wrong with the article as a whole, I think this discussion may be over.
374:
You yourself admitted that there is real-world notability for this character. Whether it is currently asserted in the article is really irrelevant to the deletion discussion if even the nominator agrees that it exists. Incorporating it into the article is a
676:
with the difficult decision of improving these articles and thus encouraging the abuse or leaving them be and risk the inappropriate removal of improvable content that would otherwise be appropriate. It kind of makes me think that
383:. This is all the more reason why things that a nominator recognizes can be fixed (even if it is something as high up on the list as assertion of notability) are not a reason for deletion. Violations of
451:
273:. As such, it isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Also, Khan's notability is beyond this movie (making a merger inappropriate), as he appears in various Trek movies, episodes, books, etc. —
114:
551:
Simply because the "real-world" notability isn't mentioned in the article, instead of recommending DELETION why don't you do some research and add the information yourself?
387:
or a need for sourcing (when sources are shown to exist) are other examples of surmountable problems which should be taken care of as expediently as possible, but to which
270:
136:
I would think there would be more real-world notability as others state this is a major character in the film, but without it is should be deleted, see
338:
per consensus, character seems to have a notable role, which at least in theory would indicate some real world notability. (Forgive me, I don't know a
418:- articles that have been improved to remove in-universe issues. Its possible for this character too, then I will even withdraw my nomination.
87:
82:
727:
To the community as a whole: I think there are some comments being made that can be interpreted as bordering on being a bit mean spirited to
779:
187:
The movie is real world notability enough. All characters of major motion pictures have their own articles, this one should be no different.
91:
517:
The article needs editing to establish real-world notability, but the subject is certainly notable, even if the article needs to be edited.
875:
voted Khan the 10th
Greatest Screen Villain of All Time, the only Trek character to appear on the 100-long listing", I'd have to say so. --
176:
74:
680:
should probably be elevated to guideline status, if only to discourage this kind of abuse. But that's another can of worms entirely.
17:
711:, e.g. Klingons), and the nom should really have known that. AFD is not cleanup even if it may be abused to have that effect. --
304:
222:
154:
501:
406:
are all real-world subjects that can make the article real-world, and these should be the primary source - good examples are
281:
233:
596:
595:
do when nominating articles for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability is look for sources themselves. See
914:
36:
872:
841:
300:
776:
752:
Thanks for that moment of
Esperanza zen, but I stand by my criticism. This was a poorly considered nomination. --
899:
879:
866:
845:
828:
811:
799:
782:
760:
740:
719:
689:
670:
644:
622:
608:
586:
560:
543:
526:
507:
488:
466:
441:
427:
400:
366:
349:
328:
308:
287:
257:
239:
211:
196:
148:
130:
56:
913:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
577:
proper to charge every nominator with the responsibility of researching every possible article for deletion.
876:
172:
78:
248:- do we have some real-world notability? If not delete, maybe merge with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan?
164:
736:
618:
582:
539:
837:
824:
795:
462:
854:
388:
380:
773:
556:
728:
573:
433:
419:
376:
249:
203:
140:
122:
666:
437:
423:
343:
322:
253:
207:
192:
144:
126:
656:
has been adding a lot of real-world content to the article. He has added an entire new section on
895:
757:
716:
685:
657:
498:
484:
396:
278:
230:
168:
70:
62:
357:
character is notable both within Star Trek fandom and among broader science fiction community.
862:
853:
per
Hnsampat and improvements to the article. Khan is too prominent a villain. Is is time for
732:
641:
614:
604:
578:
535:
362:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
384:
46:
820:
791:
458:
677:
262:
245:
137:
569:
552:
415:
407:
662:
522:
188:
891:
808:
753:
712:
681:
494:
480:
392:
274:
226:
858:
653:
637:
600:
358:
52:
108:
266:
411:
772:
per everyone, especially
Johnred32. Also, come on, it's Khan Noonien Singh.
518:
819:
as this is a noteable character from a very well-known series/franchise.
907:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
432:
Never said I know, I said I would think - big difference there.
153:
EXCUSE ME? "others state this is a major character" -- you mean
836:
Please use common sense when nominating articles for deletion.
636:
This character is well-entrenched in
American pop culture. --
591:
It's quite proper. One of the things that nominators should
700:
534:
One of the few definite keeps I have encountered in AfD.
703:. Probably the best-known of all the Star Trek villain
321:
notability despite multiple appearances in the series.
104:
100:
96:
221:
per his numerous appearances in Star Trek, especially
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
202:articles and made a focal point on the article.
917:). No further edits should be made to this page.
452:list of Fictional characters-related deletions
890:often the results of hair triggers as it is.
807:. Clear and obvious real-world notability.
50:keep. Nominator nominating to prove a point.
8:
597:Knowledge (XXG):Guide to deletion#Nomination
244:Appearances alone dont constitute keeping -
699:, ridiculously notable if only because of
871:Given the edit that added "In 2002, the
450:: This debate has been included in the
379:. Though I should also remind you that
493:I was waiting for that. Thank you :) —
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
223:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
155:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
1:
121:Lacks real-world notability.
900:03:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
880:19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
867:17:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
846:07:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
829:21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
812:20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
800:16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
783:07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
761:23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
741:03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
720:03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
690:20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
671:03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
645:02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
623:06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
609:04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
587:03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
561:02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
544:02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
527:02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
508:01:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
489:01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
467:01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
442:01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
428:01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
401:01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
367:01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
350:19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
329:01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
309:01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
288:01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
258:00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
240:00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
212:00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
197:00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
149:00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
131:00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
57:13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
873:Online Film Critics Society
317:, doesn't seem to have any
157:wasn't enough of a tipoff?
934:
910:Please do not modify it.
179:) 20:37, 4 December 2007
32:Please do not modify it.
701:http://www.khaaan.com/
301:Brian Boru is awesome
299:character is famous.
381:there is no deadline
342:about Star Trek...)
271:notability guideline
658:character analysis
477:KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!
334:The heck with it.
71:Khan Noonien Singh
63:Khan Noonien Singh
568:With due respect
469:
455:
377:surmountable task
181:
167:comment added by
925:
912:
838:Kyaa the Catlord
456:
446:
346:
345:Ten Pound Hammer
325:
324:Ten Pound Hammer
180:
161:
112:
94:
34:
933:
932:
928:
927:
926:
924:
923:
922:
921:
915:deletion review
908:
707:(as opposed to
504:
416:Kathryn Janeway
408:Jean-Luc Picard
391:still applies.
344:
323:
319:out of universe
284:
267:Manual of Style
236:
162:
85:
69:
66:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
931:
929:
920:
919:
903:
902:
884:
883:
882:
848:
831:
814:
802:
785:
766:
765:
764:
763:
744:
743:
722:
694:
693:
692:
647:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
613:Point taken.
546:
529:
512:
511:
510:
502:
470:
444:
430:
403:
369:
352:
332:
311:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
282:
234:
216:
215:
214:
182:
151:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
930:
918:
916:
911:
905:
904:
901:
897:
893:
888:
885:
881:
878:
877:uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
849:
847:
843:
839:
835:
832:
830:
826:
822:
818:
815:
813:
810:
806:
803:
801:
797:
793:
789:
786:
784:
781:
778:
775:
771:
768:
767:
762:
759:
755:
751:
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
723:
721:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
672:
668:
664:
659:
655:
651:
648:
646:
643:
639:
635:
632:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
575:
571:
567:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
545:
541:
537:
533:
530:
528:
524:
520:
516:
513:
509:
505:
499:
496:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
471:
468:
464:
460:
453:
449:
445:
443:
439:
435:
431:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
404:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
373:
370:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
351:
347:
341:
337:
333:
331:
330:
326:
320:
316:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
289:
285:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
231:
228:
224:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
199:
198:
194:
190:
186:
183:
178:
174:
170:
169:SarekOfVulcan
166:
160:
156:
152:
150:
146:
142:
139:
135:
134:
133:
132:
128:
124:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
49:
48:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
909:
906:
886:
850:
834:Obvious Keep
833:
816:
804:
787:
769:
749:
733:LonelyBeacon
724:
708:
704:
696:
654:User:Uncle G
649:
633:
615:LonelyBeacon
592:
579:LonelyBeacon
565:
548:
536:LonelyBeacon
531:
514:
476:
475:- One word:
472:
447:
371:
354:
339:
335:
318:
314:
313:
296:
218:
184:
163:— Preceding
158:
120:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
855:WP:SNOWBALL
821:Majoreditor
805:Speedy Keep
792:Doc Strange
788:Strong Keep
459:Quasirandom
389:WP:DEADLINE
372:Strong Keep
315:Weak delete
219:Strong Keep
185:Strong Keep
159:Strong Keep
705:characters
652:Recently,
570:will381796
553:will381796
412:Jadzia Dax
269:and not a
859:• Gene93k
729:Ejfetters
663:Johnred32
574:Ejfetters
434:Ejfetters
420:Ejfetters
250:Ejfetters
204:Ejfetters
189:Johnred32
141:Ejfetters
123:Ejfetters
892:23skidoo
790:per all
754:Dhartung
713:Dhartung
682:LaMenta3
503:contribs
495:Disavian
481:Hnsampat
393:LaMenta3
283:contribs
275:Disavian
235:contribs
227:Disavian
177:contribs
165:unsigned
115:View log
777:megalon
750:Comment
725:Comment
650:Comment
638:Polaron
601:Uncle G
566:Comment
385:WP:PLOT
359:Rillian
88:protect
83:history
47:WP:SNOW
809:Powers
678:WP:ATA
593:always
414:, and
263:WP:WAF
246:WP:WAF
138:WP:WAF
92:delete
709:races
340:thing
265:is a
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
896:talk
887:Keep
863:talk
851:Keep
842:talk
825:talk
817:Keep
796:talk
780:2000
774:Maxa
770:Keep
758:Talk
737:talk
717:Talk
697:Keep
686:talk
667:talk
642:Talk
634:Keep
619:talk
605:talk
583:talk
557:talk
549:Keep
540:talk
532:Keep
523:talk
519:Rray
515:Keep
485:talk
473:Keep
463:talk
448:Note
438:talk
424:talk
397:talk
363:talk
355:Keep
336:Keep
305:talk
297:Keep
254:talk
208:talk
193:talk
173:talk
145:talk
127:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
53:Will
487:))
454:.
348:•
327:•
225:. —
113:– (
898:)
865:)
857:?
844:)
827:)
798:)
756:|
739:)
715:|
688:)
669:)
640:|
621:)
607:)
599:.
585:)
559:)
542:)
525:)
506:)
479:--
465:)
440:)
426:)
410:,
399:)
365:)
307:)
286:)
256:)
238:)
210:)
195:)
175:•
147:)
129:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
894:(
861:(
840:(
823:(
794:(
735:(
684:(
665:(
617:(
603:(
581:(
555:(
538:(
521:(
500:/
497:(
483:(
461:(
457:—
436:(
422:(
395:(
361:(
303:(
280:/
277:(
252:(
232:/
229:(
206:(
191:(
171:(
143:(
125:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.