Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weyoun

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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weyoun

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Star Trek character. No works discuss his significance/impact/influence; all I see are plot summaries. I suggest a soft deletion by redirecting to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(T–Z)#W, where the lead of the current article can be added to the relevant entry in the list. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep discussed in detail at Understanding Religion and Popular Culture pp. 47-49, [1] (another 3+ pages of discussion), and [2]. Three scholarly analyses, two on religion, one on sexuality, extensively discussing this characters: GNG is met, article should be kept and expanded with the included material. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP, PhD theses are acceptable, these theses are Masters and Bachelor-level. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the first reference is disappointing, the entire section on him, while spanning three pages, is a plot summary. I don't see any analysis of his real world impact. Second link is broken (The Flinders University webpage you were looking for cannot be found) and since you did not provide a title or such, there is no way I can even discuss the source. The last source provides us with the following useful content: "Weyoun is typically portrayed as a diplomatic and jovial character, but his loyalty in the Founder means he disregards morals for the sake of faith as a conscious choice. His faith leads him to commit terrible acts in their name and at their command, such as ordering the execution of innocent individuals and also committing genocidal purges.75 His story and eventual downfall, as he dies protecting a Founder, demonstrates the lengths a person is willing to go to for the sake of one's beliefs". Useful, but I don't think this is sufficient for a stand-alone article. I still think this doesn't need anything else than 2-3 sentences in a relevant list. Soft deletion through redirect with no prejudice to merger, as I wrote above, would be totally fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But Piotrus, the problem with your 'no prejudice against a merger' argument is that it's not binding on other !voters or the closing administrator, as we've seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination). Since there are no outright delete votes, why don't you withdraw the AfD, merge the content, and we can close this discussion as 'consensus to merge' if anyone disputes it? The content gets merged, the allegedly NN article no longer exists as a standalone, and the contribution history is preserved in case someone comes up with more than you or I did and wants to expand it. What's wrong with that approach? Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simple. It means I have to work to save content that I don't think belongs here. Given that this is already better described at MemoryAlpha, I don't see why I should waste my time trying to do so. Even if this is deleted, soft or not, it won't be a loss to anyone. I have better things to do than saving fancruft like this. If the community agrees it is a problem, the article will be deleted/redirect with no loss to anyone. If the community decides it should be kept, then I'll learn from that outcome. I don't see any reason I should be the one to spend time doing the merging - this should be left to someone who cares about the given topic more than, clearly, I do. PS. I really do think that in cases like EA we should be using soft deletion, and you are welcome to ping on me in any relevant discussion about undeletion/soft redirecting/changing our policies to make it so (pun intended). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, you do nothing to follow WP:BEFORE or WP:ATD. Your contempt for the content and the people who contributed it is as palpable as it is elitist. You admit you don't care, but belittle ("Fancruft") those who do. Oh, "Memory Alpha"? That might pass WP:ELNO #12, but most fictional elements won't have an appropriate destination, and even if they did, then that destination would likely not be suitable as an external link. Real problems like POV pushing, astroturfing, and a dozen more serious issues pervade wikipedia, and yet you focus on destroying things that are, at worst, non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Flinders reference has been repaired. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens - according to my reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, neither of the theses are of high enough quality to count as sources. Could you please address this? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect as suggested by nom. Not enough sources to support a standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect as suggested by nom. I did some reference checks, no references seem to substantiate him as significant. I'm a bit of a trekky, and I like the Weyoun character (and Jeffrey Combs is an excellent actor!)... but don't see this character as significant enough to warrant his own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - satisfies WP:GNG per above. Merge at the very least. Smartyllama (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty significant recurring character who justifies their own article. Artw (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Weyoun is the driving character in several episodes. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2017 (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.