Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong (2nd nomination)

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 per WP:SNOW. There is no realistic chance this will result in consensus delete.--Isotope23 20:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noonien Soong

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

The page is basically a stub. Contains only plot summaries. No third party sources. No verifiable sources. About a minor character of no proven notability. Has no sources besides the Star Trek Wikipedia. The justifications for why he was kept before is "he made data" and other things that could be stated on the pages of the other characters or on a list of minor characters as opposed to needing his own page. NobutoraTakeda 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noonien Soong

• Keep. A major recurring character from a well-known work of fiction. The article does include more than plot summary, and doesn't really look like a stub to me. Problems with sourcing can be fixed. JulesH 17:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Last AFD was a unanimous keep, closed early with a suspicion of WP:POINT. I see no reason to believe this one won't progress similarly. JulesH 17:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Last AFD was not unanimous keep, but included 6 keeps/merges. 6 people did not believe that the character warranted his own page. NobutoraTakeda 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a full page of "Keep"s on the old AfD. People don't generally write and bold "keep" if they don't want an article kept. Orderinchaos 18:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

They don't say merge if they don't mean a merge. Don't twist the truth when it is available for everyone. NobutoraTakeda 18:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep notable character from the Star Trek series, current article is sound basis for expansion, nothing changed since last unaminous keep on AFD. Davewild 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• WP:SNOWBALL Article complies with notability guidelines for fiction, and the nominating user has not provided any new justifications for deletion nor as pointed out by Davewild any significant changes to the article since the last AfD. Close as a snowball speedy keep. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noonien_Soong&diff=72360261&oldid=53216517 NobutoraTakeda 17:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment also this is one the examples on Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) of an article that should meet guideline. Davewild 17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has changed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Noonien_Soong&diff=72360261&oldid=53216517 NobutoraTakeda 17:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per the above, although I suspect that this and a number of other minor recurring characters could probably be merged into a List of minor characters on Star Trek: The Next Generation or the like. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Then please change your answer to merge. The fact that it wasn't merged even though so many people wanted to last time was that they answered keep and not merge. There were six merge votes. NobutoraTakeda 17:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is decidedly bad faith to tell an established contributor how to vote. Orderinchaos 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It is decidedly bad faith to accuse people of bad faith and of vandalising pages because you want to protect star trek pages. NobutoraTakeda 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well I've just looked through his edit summary, and in the last 5,000 edits this is the only one related to Star Trek. That accusation simply doesn't stack up. Oh, and I second his comments that it is incredibly bad faith on your part by telling people how to vote. Thewinchester ^(talk) 17:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realise I've probably watched no more than 7 or 8 episodes of the show in my entire life? Orderinchaos 17:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet both of you were at the Star Trek page and both of you were acting rude on my talk page. Amazing how you come to his defense so readily. I didn't tell someone how to vote. I told them to change the wording on their vote to merge if they believed in a merge. Once again you are accusing me of things falsely just because you want to keep your star trek mention in your fiction page. Need I put up diffs where you were at the star trek page, at the fiction page, and on my talk page and thewinchester talk page where you guys started fights over this with me? NobutoraTakeda 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment What fight, where? A change was made to a policy which was reverted because it was unilateral and not discussed at talk, you removed it again, it was reverted. You then start accusing me of everything under the sun, including pouring sugar into your gastank. This is an ad hominem argument by yourself, and is only an attempt to distract attention from the matter at hand, this AfD. Thewinchester ^(talk) 19:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You accuse others of trying to distract attention when its you trying to distract attention. As the other person at the Fiction edit out your action, it appears that you were in the minority and acted inappropriately, not I. Are you here to legitimately discuss this or are you here to try and be vindictive because I stepped onto your territory? You already made substantial edits to my talk page with condesending edit summaries and tried to spin things around enough. Why are you seeking to disrupt this so badly? NobutoraTakeda 19:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to let people see your edits for what they are, not what you claim them to be, stop making ad hominem arguments in an AfD and get back to the topic. Thewinchester ^(talk) 19:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My !vote is to keep and it will remain that way. Merging is an editorial decision that may be performed independent of an AfD. It is my opinion that currently the best way to handle this is to simply keep the article - interested editors may wish to perform a merge after the fact. Without passing a judgement on whether your comment was in good faith it is presumputous and rude to tell me to alter the substance of my recommendation. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

No its not. This is a discussion, not a vote. I asked you to change your wording to reflect your comment. Your comment is what matters and your bold text is to reflect what your comment is. NobutoraTakeda 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to be reminded what AfD is or is not - but as you say this is a discussion and not a vote, and in my comment I stated that it could probably be merged. This hardly constitutes an overall "merge" opinion on my part. Besides, if you agree that it's a discussion and not a vote, why should you care what word I choose to bold at all? ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I care because it makes it easy to summarize what your point will be as I pointed out above.NobutoraTakeda 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And my point is to keep the article for now with a suggestion for potential merging in the future. Do not attempt to interperet me any other way. Case closed. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable character in a well-known work of fiction. There are of course not going to be very many real world sources because Noonien Soong does not exist outside our screens and his creator's and actor's imaginations. Orderinchaos 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If sources don't exist, we merge or delete. Being in the work is not enough to keep it. TTN 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • There are sources - I found two (they're in the article), and those more familiar with the series than myself would probably have access to dead wood stuff that I don't. Orderinchaos 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You have given a wiki (cannot be used as a source) and a completely in-universe biography. You need sources giving real world information or it's pointless. TTN 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Err, the one about the actor doesn't assert anything because most characters have a (voice) actor playing them. TTN 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to a list. This is about the size of a list entry and it likely cannot become much more. People shouldn't rely on the last AfD for anything. The article doesn't follow WP:FICT or WP:WAF at all (one minor point isn't enough) and nothing has shown that sources can be provided, so those keeps were based on lower standards and WP:ILIKEITs. TTN 17:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I'm not thrilled about minor characters generally, but he does appear to pass WP:FICT. --Charlene 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part of him passes fiction? There are no third party sources available to establish notability. NobutoraTakeda 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is from the above link "Minor characters and minor treatments of such matters as places and concepts in a work of fiction are merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list resides in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is created." NobutoraTakeda 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My vote stands and will not be changed. --Charlene 19:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you at least clarify your reasoning for it? You said it passes fiction, but I don't see an explanation as to where. You could argue that he is a major character that some have before, or you could say that the list of minor characters is too long and he needs his own page. NobutoraTakeda 19:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable enough minor character. --Hemlock Martinis 18:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you notice above, the Fiction guidelines clearly state that minor characters should be put in a list of characters and not with their own article unless the entry is too long, which it is not. NobutoraTakeda 18:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Notable character in a notable universe. Also, possible WP:POINT as this article was brought up and debated the on the nominators first AfD? --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Point requires me to break a rule. Nominating an article for deletion that has no substantial third party source is not a point violation. NobutoraTakeda 19:51, 17 July 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.