Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Admiral Komack
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Admiral Komack
- – (View log)
Character who makes a single appearance in a single episode. Per other characters with similar lack of exposure, I suggest redirecting to that episode. One thing that sets this character apart is that he is the first admiral to appear in Star Trek; ex-Husnock/38.119.112.187/189/190, who seems to have ownership issues over this article, wants an AfD on this basis. I contend that mentioning this being the first episode in which a character of that grade appears covers the bases sufficiently -- the character itself is not notable beyond a fanboy interest in when a rank first appears, and a mention in the more-significant episode article itself is more appropriate. After all, more folks will search for the episode title than an obscure -- even if first-time-in-Trek -- admiral. --EEMeltonIV 14:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- COMMENT: Okay, first of all, I never said I owned this article. I noticed that the article had a two year history with some 10 ten people having edited it. Then EMelton came along and blanked the whole thing without a word of discussion. I asked for such discussion, he blanked it again, so I suggested a VfD in order to get other opinions. I was polite during the entire affair, yet now there are some suggestions that I have acted improperly? I also see that EMelton keeps dropping names like “fanboy” and “wingnut” (see Fleet Captain (Star Trek)) which seems to me somewhat uncivil. Second point, I have no idea where this equating me with another user, who has been off this site for months, comes from. Star Trek rank articles have been worked on by several people, so am I also ex-Morwen, or ex-Coolcat? Who I am is not important and I am under no obligation to sign in to prove myself. If EMelton thinks I am abusing another account there are plenty of Wikipedia channels to report this. Lets focus on the article at hand and stay away from accusations and name calling. -38.119.112.189 11:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I see in response to my polite notice, you have hinted in an edit history that I am a sockpuppet [1]. I am under no obligation to log in or create an account and dropping hints of impropriety in edit histories (which are permanent records of an article) is quite uncalled for. Please focus on the article and away from name calling. It is quite uncalled for. -38.119.112.187 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- COMMENT: Okay, first of all, I never said I owned this article. I noticed that the article had a two year history with some 10 ten people having edited it. Then EMelton came along and blanked the whole thing without a word of discussion. I asked for such discussion, he blanked it again, so I suggested a VfD in order to get other opinions. I was polite during the entire affair, yet now there are some suggestions that I have acted improperly? I also see that EMelton keeps dropping names like “fanboy” and “wingnut” (see Fleet Captain (Star Trek)) which seems to me somewhat uncivil. Second point, I have no idea where this equating me with another user, who has been off this site for months, comes from. Star Trek rank articles have been worked on by several people, so am I also ex-Morwen, or ex-Coolcat? Who I am is not important and I am under no obligation to sign in to prove myself. If EMelton thinks I am abusing another account there are plenty of Wikipedia channels to report this. Lets focus on the article at hand and stay away from accusations and name calling. -38.119.112.189 11:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- KEEP: I am the original user who brought up to EMelton that he should run an AfD. I feel the article has good merit, including data on the actor who portrated the character, and is of note becuase this character was the first ever Admiral to appear in a Star Trek production. I am also not a "fanboy", as EMelton has suggested. I have 2 Master's Degrees and have written a Star Trek novel for Pocket Books. Not that this is said to influence the vote, only that EMelton should not be so quick to call people names when he knows nothing about them. -38.119.112.189 11:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep There is too much information here to integrate into the episode, and there is more than enough for it to stand on its own.--Ng.j 19:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep the article but lose the immaturity that is going on between EEMeltonIV and 38.119. Regardless of who 38 is, as long as he hasn't broken any rules he should be okay and should be allowed to edit freely. -213.42.21.79 11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Article fails WP:FICTION for a separate article; all applicable pertinent information already located at "Amok Time". — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect to Amok Time . This is an article about a very minor character with barely a line of dialogue. There can be no expansion as everything that can be said has already been said. It has also been said at Amok Time, so no merge is necessary.--Kubigula (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Bryant 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, extremely minor fictional character. Lankiveil 04:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete per the plot summaries section in WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information. This is a clearly unencyclopediac subject - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, and as stated above, redirect to the episode. I believe that anyone needing to know about such a minor character would be enough of a fan of Star Trek that they would know about Memory Alpha, where this information would be more readily available. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mastrchf91 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
- Delete Just not a very notable character. Maxamegalon2000 05:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
