Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lwaxana Troi

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. John254 01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lwaxana Troi

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

Minor character, article has no real-world notability. Would be better served with a merger, but others keep removing the merger tag. Ejfetters (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• • Please see WP:WAF - does enough real-world notability exist for this minor character? Ejfetters (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Deanna Troi, this character is totally NN. RMHED (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. See "Medical Ethics through the Star Trek Lens", which covers her affair with a scientist from a world that sentences all elders to die. Also see this interview with Barrett, where she states "I love her. I've had women yell at me across parking lots at supermarkets, saying 'You've done more for women over forty than any movement in America!'". Lwaxana Troi is easily the second most important recurring character on the show after Q. Does the phrase WP:POINT ring a bell?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the kind of notable information I have been talking about that we need. Add it to the article please, it still has no real-world notability. I am not arguing that these subjects have no real world notability, I am arguing that the articles have no real world notability. If the article is AFD'd and you find real world notability, then you should add it to the article then state here what you added and why it is notable. I hope the same is found for Khan - thanks! :) Ejfetters (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Other information that can DRASTICALLY help would be concept behind the characters, casting information, critical acclaim (which you seem to have found from the interview and the people yelling across stores at her) - nice work! Ejfetters (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It's good that you appreciate there may in fact be sources. It is not good that you are treating AFD as some kind of coached cleanup process. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep as one of the most important recurring characters in Star Trek. She's also portrayed by Gene Roddenberry's wife, which gives the character a significant amount of external notability. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't understand how who portrays the character adds significant notability. The article is about Lwaxana Troi, not Majel Barrett. another user has already stated the real-world notability that he found, maybe someone should try incorporating it into the article now. Ejfetters (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, I disagree, I don't think she's more notable then say, Q or Guinan, she merely added some comic relief except for a couple of episodes when the plot somewhat revloved around her. Ejfetters (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
      • If you admit there were episodes where the plot revolved around her, why are you trying to remove her article?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Because the article has no real-world notability, that is in-universe notability. You found real-world notability, why haven't you added it to the article? Ejfetters (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
          • Why don't you take your own advice and add yourself, since you want it so badly?
• Another excerpt from a paper: "At the opposite end of the feminine spectrum is the character of the telepathic extraterrestrial Lwaxana Troi, the hormonally crazed, menopausal mother of Deanna. Whereas characterization in The Next Generation is encoded and hence decoded accordi ng to the conventions of realism, Lwaxana's character is rendered in the exaggerated conventions of burlesque comedy and hence comes across as a tasteless sexist joke. Not only is she the bane of her daughter's existence, she is also a sexual predator wh o functions as justification for the latent misogyny of the scripts she inhabits. In addition, as she repeatedly reminds us in her imperious way, she is the daughter of the Fifth House, Holder of the Sacred Challice of Rixx, and Heir to the Holy Rings of Betazed. She is also notorious for her rude and dismissive remarks about other humanoid species. Thus, as the exaggerated focus of elitism and racism, she draws our attention away from these qualities as they exist in their normative form in the other characters. Indeed, in one episode Captain Picard and the other officers, whose male protection she seeks, can abandon her with impugnity to a repulsive and lecherous Ferengi kidnapper."--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Why are you listing this here, add it to the article, thats the reason we are arguing. Ejfetters (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Per others. Article shouldn't be deleted just because it needs material added to it. Needing improvement does not equate to needing deletion. Rray (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The character does have notability in universe, and I agree given the one actress to play the role and her relationship to the creator of the series, that this is a notable fictional character. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So you are saying it should be kept against policy ? I don't understand, on one hand you say it's notable in the fictional universe, but the policy is that there must real world notability, I don't understand your position. Jackaranga (talk) 02:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think policy has been satisfied (from what I can tell). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) is, as the manual sates, a guideline, but not a hard and fast rule. It does state the key notability guideline as a need for secondary sources. I think User:SarekOfVulcan has established that there is secondary source work available. Is it tenuous? I would agree, but I think this might be an article that at least deserves some time to establish that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete It is clearly not notable outside of the Star Trek universe, and even in the universe notability is debatable. Delete per WP:FICTION it clearly has no real world notability. Jackaranga (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per citations found by SarekofVulcan. Plus, being a major recurring character, I'm pretty sure there are other series the character appears in, e.g. novels. --Polaron | Talk 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as a major recurring plot devise in a major TV series. Tomorrow I'll go find my behind the scenes books and get some quotes about how she figured in the TNG writers considerations about structuring the seasons of that show. The more basic point, however, is that deletion is not the solution for a poorly written article—editing is. Only is the problem is the articles subject (and not only its presentation) is deletion required. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sarek of Vulcan. Maxamegalon2000 07:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep AFD is not cleanup and this process should not be used as a threat to drive activity which is volunteer and not subject to any deadline. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment As far as recurring characters go, she's significant because Majel Barrett (who had been "Nurse Chapel" on the original series and "Number One" in the pilot) made her so memorable. Star Trek fans couldn't help but notice the contrast between the wild Lwaxana and the staid Christine Chapel. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's been shown that sources exist, which should be sufficient to keep... yes, those sources need to be integrated into the article, but the point of AfD isn't to throw out articles that we know are sourceable just because that hasn't happened yet. Pinball22 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, sources do exist to show the out-of-universe notability of this character. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep obviously a notable recurring character across two major TV series, and usually central to the plot of episodes she appears in. At worst this would be a merge to Deanna Troi, definitely not a case for deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Recurring character in two major television series. Satisfies pretty much every criteria there is for a character article. 23skidoo (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, obviously notable per above sources. Nominator is reminded that it's the existence of sources demonstrating notability that is important, not the presence of said sources in the article's current state. (Obviously, such sources should be added, but the mere failure to do so is not grounds for deletion so long as such sources exist somewhere.) See WP:PROBLEM. Powers ^T 14:02, 7 December 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.