893:: I am not convinced about this particular character's notability as I do not necessarily see a significant amount of coverage on this subject in third-party, notable sources. It would be greatly beneficial if the keep votes could provide the links to the sources that support this character meets the notability standards, as I can see all of the information regarding this subject fitting rather comfortably in the list article. I would be more than happy to change my vote to keep if I could see more links (and I do not believe the links about the existence of an action figure are particularly useful in this context). While I think the Peter David links are good and permissible, I think this article needs a few more third-party sources on the development or reception of the character would greatly help to support this subject's notability. I apologize for the length of my response and I look forward to a longer discussion about this. As someone who greatly enjoys creating articles about fictional characters (and I have received some notes about their questionable notability as well), I would greatly appreciate hearing a little more from the "keep" votes. Thank you in advance.
810:
They can when they are all plot references: he is only discussed in 1) works of fiction where he is a plot element 2) summaries of plot element like Star Trek encyclopedias, omnibuses, etc. 3) social media fan discussions (blogs, forums) and 4) merchandise pages (reviews of action figurine). There is
684:
You cannot seriously think those are reliable, and on topic. That he has action figures doesn't make him notable, and the product description plus few blog fan comments on the figure are hardly helpful for anything except to reference a sentence saying he has an action figure - which, again, does not
209:
Not your household Star Trek name - this is a comic book/novel character. Sources are primarily primary (novels, etc.). Influences section looks promising - until one realizes it is based on a mailing list/blog comments by the author who invented this character (primary/OR/self-published/etc.). There
911:
I believe the claim for notability is that he is the most notable character from New
Frontier, and that there are enough references to support a stand-alone article rather than merging into that list. I'd consider references in the context of Star Trek (the TV series) to be sufficient; I don't
463:
is relevant--not improvement, not merging, not redirection--and that therefore the existing article should be removed from
Knowledge (XXG) and nothing left in its place. Your nominations consistently fail this, and I do find it quite frustrating that you seem immune to any education on your
926:
Thank you for your response; it just would be helpful to get some links to the references that are considered as enough support to satisfy the notability standards. If I could see those links, I would be more than happy to change my vote, but I just am not seeing them when looking online.
961:
Thank you for your response. I do not believe that those two sources (especially the
Hollywood Reporter one, which is extremely trivial) is enough to support the notability of this character, but I will leave the discussion to other, more experienced users.
435:- please cite them, and please don't cite in-universe plot summaries; those are not sufficient. And no, author's comments about his own character on a blog/discussion list/social media/etc. don't suffice to establish a character's notability. --
862:
Which sourcing is 'good' here? Do you mean the novels? The blog review of the action figure? Or perhaps you refer to my favorite, 'Advertisement printed on the inside back cover of multiple Star Trek novels published in 1998 and 1999.'?
430:
No keep rationale advanced. If you want to merge, vote so or do it, there is no rule saying merge has to proposed before deletion. I don't see what could be merged - he deserves a one-sentence on some list of ST characters at most.
603:
The article says "Calhoun is the only Star Trek character that has not appeared in any of the Star Trek television series or movies to have an action figure." without a source. I'd be interested in learning more about that.
359:
178:
811:
not a single reliable reference discussing his significance, etc. The burden of proof to show he is notable is on the article creator(s) and those voting keep and so far that burden has not been fulfilled. --
308:
228:
The character indeed debuted in a novel (not a comic book), and Peter David's site is indeed a blog (not a "mailing list"). I created this article before I fully came to understand the mportance of
248:
268:
528:
How many times will you try to change the topic? There are no good sources. The low quality sources you found don't help. I saw most of them BEFORE, and I dismissed them as garbage. --
353:
288:
172:
464:
responsibilities as nominator. You think all it take is starting an AfD that says 'NN, delete' and then anyone arguing keep has the burden to provide sources. Sorry, but
131:
402:
expects that it be merged or redirected. There's no question it's verifiable. 2) Several RS'es exist, specifically in the 'news' and 'books' sections of the above
210:
is nothing to suggest this character has significance outside niche fandom discussions, and certainly nothing that warrants him being in an encyclopedia.
886:
455:, there never needs to be a keep rationale: rebutting the delete rationale is sufficient. In this case, as nominator, you are positively asserting that
663:
138:
104:
99:
108:
510:, 2) how to do it effectively, and 3) how to communicate your findings to justify deletion as opposed to any other outcome preferred by
91:
374:
17:
341:
193:
667:
432:
160:
63:
945:
485:
I don't understand your point. Both deletion and keep arguments need a rationale. And I provided my rationale: failure at
988:
622:
559:
998:
335:
1024:
40:
942:
331:
154:
591:
406:
1005:
971:
956:
936:
921:
902:
875:
850:
823:
805:
787:
766:
744:
716:
707:
thanks. I'm not convinced it's a useful article personally, but I'm convinced it meets notability guidelines.
697:
679:
646:
613:
595:
576:
540:
523:
501:
477:
447:
425:
320:
300:
280:
260:
241:
222:
73:
381:
150:
729:
952:
917:
801:
762:
712:
639:
609:
95:
200:
1020:
732:
is not a valid argument, statements need rationale behind them. You think it is notable because.... ? --
237:
36:
489:. PS. I am quite fine with soft deletion, merging and redirecting, and you should know that by now. --
587:
347:
660:
367:
186:
796:. Simply saying that all the references are "Star Trek related" doesn't mean they can be ignored.
507:
465:
675:
519:
473:
421:
68:
166:
948:
913:
869:
817:
797:
781:
758:
738:
723:
708:
691:
634:
605:
534:
495:
441:
316:
296:
276:
256:
216:
87:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1019:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
229:
54:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
967:
932:
898:
846:
233:
793:
772:
754:
750:
586:
The article relies too much on primary sources without showing significance of the subject.
511:
486:
460:
413:
399:
412:
template, sufficient to meet GNG. 3) As a notable author, Peter David's own comments meet
657:
671:
515:
482:
469:
417:
58:
865:
813:
777:
734:
687:
570:
530:
491:
452:
437:
312:
292:
272:
252:
212:
125:
963:
928:
894:
857:
842:
944:
is the best I can find for the character, and that's a trivial reference.
670:
is likely the most interesting of the four, quite critical of the figure.
749:
There's no argument provided for deleting the article. It's clearly not
468:
makes it clear that the nominator is expected to do the work beforehand.
52:. Arguments roughly divided between both sides after three relists.
1013:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
947:
actively avoids mentioning him by name but does reference him.
771:
Because as you said yourself (contradicting yourself) he fails
991:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
625:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
562:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
309:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
656:
here are a couple of sources that mention an action figure:
249:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
121:
117:
113:
366:
185:
912:
believe there's consensus as to whether those exist.
506:
How many times need I explain 1) that you need to do
269:
list of
Science fiction-related deletion discussions
997:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
631:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
568:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
380:
199:
757:as well. Why do you want to delete the article?
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1027:). No further edits should be made to this page.
289:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
398:rationale advanced: even if it's non-notable
232:. I'll try to find secondary sources for it.
8:
775:. If he does not, do say how he meets it. --
514:? Seriously, what part of that is unclear?
307:Note: This debate has been included in the
287:Note: This debate has been included in the
267:Note: This debate has been included in the
247:Note: This debate has been included in the
306:
286:
266:
246:
866:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
814:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
778:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
735:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
688:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
531:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
492:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
438:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
213:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
841:- Good sourcing, also per WP:GNG.--
24:
792:I don't believe I said he fails
728:Can you say why? Keep in mind
1:
753:and I'm convinced it passes
941:From a Google news search,
1044:
321:23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
301:23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
281:23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
261:23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
242:06:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
223:06:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
1016:Please do not modify it.
1006:05:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
972:15:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
957:03:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
937:03:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
922:20:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
903:15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
876:04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
851:16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
824:03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
806:20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
788:08:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
767:19:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
745:10:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
717:08:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
698:03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
680:02:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
647:11:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
614:23:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
541:03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
524:02:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
74:13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
889:Star Trek: New Frontier
596:03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
577:01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
502:05:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
478:04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
448:05:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
426:05:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
433:WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES
685:make him notable. --
55:(non-admin closure)
1008:
649:
588:John Pack Lambert
579:
323:
303:
283:
263:
88:Mackenzie Calhoun
80:Mackenzie Calhoun
57:
1035:
1018:
1003:
996:
994:
992:
872:
861:
820:
784:
741:
727:
694:
644:
642:
637:
630:
628:
626:
573:
567:
565:
563:
537:
498:
444:
411:
407:Find sources AFD
405:
385:
384:
370:
219:
204:
203:
189:
141:
129:
111:
71:
66:
61:
53:
34:
1043:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1025:deletion review
1014:
1009:
999:
987:
985:
874:
870:
855:
822:
818:
786:
782:
743:
739:
721:
696:
692:
650:
640:
635:
633:
621:
619:
580:
571:
558:
556:
539:
535:
500:
496:
446:
442:
409:
403:
327:
221:
217:
146:
137:
102:
86:
83:
69:
64:
59:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1041:
1039:
1030:
1029:
995:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
906:
905:
880:
879:
878:
864:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
812:
776:
733:
702:
701:
700:
686:
629:
618:
617:
616:
598:
566:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
529:
490:
436:
388:
387:
324:
304:
284:
264:
244:
211:
207:
206:
143:
82:
77:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1040:
1028:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1002:
1001:Winged Blades
993:
990:
973:
969:
965:
960:
959:
958:
954:
950:
946:
943:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
910:
909:
908:
907:
904:
900:
896:
892:
890:
884:
881:
877:
873:
867:
859:
854:
853:
852:
848:
844:
840:
837:
825:
821:
815:
809:
808:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
790:
789:
785:
779:
774:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
747:
746:
742:
736:
731:
730:WP:ITSNOTABLE
725:
720:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
699:
695:
689:
683:
682:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
658:
655:
652:
651:
648:
645:
643:
638:
627:
624:
615:
611:
607:
602:
599:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:
581:
578:
575:
574:
564:
561:
542:
538:
532:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
499:
493:
488:
484:
481:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
462:
458:
454:
451:
450:
449:
445:
439:
434:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
408:
401:
397:
393:
390:
389:
383:
379:
376:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
337:
333:
330:
329:Find sources:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
265:
262:
258:
254:
250:
245:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
214:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
152:
149:
148:Find sources:
144:
140:
136:
133:
127:
123:
119:
115:
110:
106:
101:
97:
93:
89:
85:
84:
81:
78:
76:
75:
72:
67:
62:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1015:
1012:
1000:
986:
949:Power~enwiki
914:Power~enwiki
888:
882:
838:
798:Power~enwiki
759:Power~enwiki
724:Power~enwiki
709:Power~enwiki
704:
654:As requested
653:
636:CAPTAIN RAJU
632:
620:
606:Power~enwiki
600:
583:
569:
557:
456:
395:
391:
377:
371:
363:
356:
350:
344:
338:
328:
208:
196:
190:
182:
175:
169:
163:
157:
147:
134:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
354:free images
234:Nightscream
173:free images
891:characters
871:reply here
819:reply here
783:reply here
740:reply here
693:reply here
536:reply here
497:reply here
443:reply here
218:reply here
1021:talk page
705:Weak Keep
508:WP:BEFORE
466:WP:BEFORE
313:• Gene93k
293:• Gene93k
273:• Gene93k
253:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1023:or in a
989:Relisted
887:List of
883:Redirect
672:Jclemens
623:Relisted
560:Relisted
516:Jclemens
483:Jclemens
470:Jclemens
418:Jclemens
396:deletion
132:View log
39:or in a
601:Comment
572:MBisanz
457:nothing
453:Piotrus
360:WP refs
348:scholar
230:WP:PSTS
179:WP refs
167:scholar
105:protect
100:history
964:Aoba47
929:Aoba47
895:Aoba47
858:BabbaQ
843:BabbaQ
794:WP:GNG
773:WP:GNG
755:WP:GNG
751:WP:TNT
666:, and
584:Delete
512:WP:ATD
487:WP:GNG
461:WP:ATD
414:WP:SPS
400:WP:ATD
394:1) No
332:Google
151:Google
109:delete
70:minist
375:JSTOR
336:books
194:JSTOR
155:books
139:Stats
126:views
118:watch
114:links
16:<
968:talk
953:talk
933:talk
918:talk
899:talk
847:talk
839:Keep
802:talk
763:talk
713:talk
676:talk
668:this
664:eBay
610:talk
592:talk
520:talk
474:talk
422:talk
392:Keep
368:FENS
342:news
317:talk
297:talk
277:talk
257:talk
238:talk
187:FENS
161:news
122:logs
96:talk
92:edit
885:to
641:(✉)
459:in
382:TWL
201:TWL
130:– (
970:)
955:)
935:)
920:)
901:)
863:--
849:)
804:)
765:)
715:)
678:)
662:,
659:,
612:)
594:)
522:)
476:)
424:)
416:.
410:}}
404:{{
362:)
319:)
311:.
299:)
291:.
279:)
271:.
259:)
251:.
240:)
181:)
124:|
120:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
966:(
951:(
931:(
916:(
897:(
868:|
860::
856:@
845:(
816:|
800:(
780:|
761:(
737:|
726::
722:@
711:(
690:|
674:(
608:(
590:(
533:|
518:(
494:|
472:(
440:|
420:(
386:)
378:·
372:·
364:·
357:·
351:·
345:·
339:·
334:(
326:(
315:(
295:(
275:(
255:(
236:(
215:|
205:)
197:·
191:·
183:·
176:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
153:(
145:(
142:)
135:·
128:)
90:(
65:e
60:f
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.