Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim

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 History of Joachim split between Joachim (Saint) and Joachim (Star Trek), Jochim itself links to disamb page, and the redirects are like tangled spaghetti, but between all of us maybe we can fix it. Place Joachim (Star Trek) on AfD on its own, this will be closed with everything kept.. Avi 20:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joachim

Joachim (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

In-universe, plot summary article about a non-notable character EEMeltonIV 23:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article can use clean-up, but the character is not non-notable by any means. He has a major role in the movie - and certainly not an article for deletion. By using your criteria, half of the Star Trek entries would be deleted.

Besides, you should discuss it in the Talk pages before arbitrarily deciding by yourself something should be deleted.

TenaciousT 00:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• The character pushed a few buttons and had a few lines of dialog. This is hardly notable. By *your* criteria, every miscellaneous extra should have their own page. Memory Alpha has its own site. --EEMeltonIV 01:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• You have obviously never even seen Wrath of Khan, or even read the article.

Please note:

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:

Abuse of tags

Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on articles that do not meet such criteria.Drearwig 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Take a look at my edit history and you can pretty well extrapolate that I've seen STII. Additionally, you have yet to make an argument in favor of keeping this article. Perhaps rather than assuming bad faith on my part, you explain why this character warrants an article when more-significant characters like Dimitri Valtane, Michael Eddington, William Ross, and most of the other characters here don't. --EEMeltonIV 02:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• As an additional point for anyone interested in discussing the merits of whether this article should exist, Memory Alpha's article on Joachim is quite sparse. --EEMeltonIV 02:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Saint Joachim was moved from Joachim to make way for this content - existing links were not fixed. Saint Joachim should move back to Joachim. The Star Trek character should be merged elsewhere or be deleted. Man vyi 06:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - I just happened to see the film the other day and now come across this Afd (however it was raised) and the character is not notable enough. If it was kept, it should still be moved to Joachim (Star trek) or the like, to make space for a DAB page. Such a DAB page should be created in any case since there are mentioned a few other Joachims already on the saints page. The dab page should not only link to the saint's page (whose current name is in line with that of many other saints inluding his own wife) but also to the Star Trek film in case the character Joachim remains with out own article (which is what I am voting for) Tikiwont 11:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• SAVE - The last thing I wish to do is spoil a surprise, but the character Joachim plays a very large role in the upcoming movie. I propose we keep the site as is, and discuss this issue again after the buzz from the new Star Trek movie dies down. Drearwig 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Don't everyone jump on this at once... :) --EEMeltonIV 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• SAVE - I vote to save, for the following reasons:

• The character has a significant role in the TOS episode "Space Seed," which was the foundation for TWOK.
  
• Many film scholars have stated that TWOK is an allegory for Moby Dick, with Khan being Ahab. This being the case, Joachim is very much Khan's Starbuck; loyal, but questioning Khan's actins and motives. He is more than a mere "button-pusher." He is Khan's right-hand man.
  
• In non-canon Star Trek books, Joachim is a major character, especially in the Eugenics Wars and books about life on Ceti Alpha V. Yes, it's non-canon but many readers of these Star Trek books would come to this Wikipedia page to read a biography of the character.
  
• The point was made that if Michael Eddington doesn't have his own page, Joachim shouldn't either. Well, I think Eddington should have his own page! He deserves it just as much as Joachim.
  
• Yes, I have heard the rumors as well that Joachim plays a major role in Star Trek XI. As time goes on, people will want to know who this guy is and this article will help refresh their memories.
  

TenaciousT 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, many film villains have a right hand and most of the other points above do not really result from the article itself, not to talk about sources. Tikiwont 20:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Restore to this version. If the article was "moved" it obviously didn't keep its edit history. However it was moved is a copyright violation. Restore back to the version I mentioned, do a move to Saint Joachim, and then recreate this version. Corvus cornix 18:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I created the Joachim (disambiguation) to hopefully address your concerns about the other people named Joachim. TenaciousT 19:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That still doesn't address the cut and paste move which lost the edit history. Corvus cornix 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Fixing that will require an administrators intervention who would (1) move the current article (if kept) to e.g. Joachim (Stra Trek) with the latest history, recreate (2) Saint John on the basis fo the above version and now (3) move back the new dab page here, all of which could have been avoided. Tikiwont 21:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No multiple, independent sources provided. I'm happy to change my vote to "keep" if someone can show me a couple published articles focussing on this character. —Psychonaut 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. I move strongly to undue TenaciousT's edits. The original page (dealing with the deuterocanonical father of Mary) was at Joachim, but this editor, without discussion and without the use of the move tab, made some sloppy copy and paste moves. The biblical figure was not referred to as "Saint" in the primary sources. That is only a POV of the Catholic/Orthodox. This article, if it isn't deleted, should be moved to Joachim (Star Trek). Saint Joachim should be moved back to Joachim and discussion should take place through the appropriate proposed move channels. --Andrew c 21:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

*Restore religious content/Delete Star Trek content -- I didn't realize there was a previous, totally un-related Joachim article. For the reasons Andrew c outlined, Joachim should be restored/reverted to its previous content as it relates to the religious figure, and the Star Trek-related content axed. The copy-and-pasted Saint Joachim should redirect to Joachim. (I know AfD isn't a vote, but for whomever's keeping track, I'm the original nominator; don't "count" me twice.) --EEMeltonIV 21:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment/Request - It looks like Joachim has been restored to its previous content per Andrew c's suggestion. For simplicity's(?) sake, can an admin. close this discussion? I will start have created an AfD for Joachim (Star Trek) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim (Star Trek). --EEMeltonIV 01:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - We're not completely finished. As already said, the edits cannot be undone completely without admin. While we now have a satisfactory structere ( I did not want to imlpy that Joachim should be moved to Saint Joachim), the current Joachim article contains now inside its history also the Star Trek character, and Joachim (Star Trek) is without ist early editing history. The latter may not be a problem, but Joachim needs to be effectively restored to this version. Tikiwont 09:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

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.