Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jean-Luc Picard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Jean-Luc Picard

Before you all baulk, just think I'm an idiot and vote keep, I would say that I am being serious about this. Wikipedia is jammed full of what I would call fancruft. I've nothing against fictional things being included. However, I oppose that fact that every chareacter then gets its own page, then every plotline/episode/fictional place/joke. To be honest, it all belongs on fan sites, not in a useful encyclopedia. Wikiedia should be unique, but making individual character web pages is not useful. It's banal and unencyclopediac.

Therefore, I think that we should start by deleting this page. Please think prior to voting. I'm not against Star Trek et al being included, just not in this much detail. I vote Delete. --Bucephalus 16:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

    • Comment the concept of "jammed full" does not apply to online encylopedias which can be expanded indefinately. Kappa 17:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • KeepI agree with you for the most part on the fancruft stuff, however this is a very prominent character, it is also a very well-crafted page. I agree some of the more minutae info about shows like Star Trek should be merged into other pages, but I feel this page is important enough to merit its own page as Picard is somewhat of a pop culure icon, therefore Keep. -CunningLinguist 22:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- [[User:Djinn112|Djinn112 ♠♥♣♦,]] 23:18, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Normally I'd agree but ST:TNG is one major TV series. Sure, it would be a bit silly to include details best left to fansites such as extended character bios, episode guides, episode details and the like. But giving some background info on the main characters of a few major TV shows seems pretty much acceptable. But including details for every class of starship from every sci-fi universe is a tad... over-the-hill, yesh. For example, who the heck can accept this in an encyclopedia? So in short; Get rid of the excessive details, keep the main bits. :: DarkLordSeth 02:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Picard's a well known character even for people only casually aware of the series. He crosses media and is referred to in unrelated contexts, as are several of the characters (For example, Stephen Hawking refers to Data that android in Universe in a Nutshell. If someone wanted to learn about Data, Picard & Co., I think we should be able to provide information. We certainly have the will to document it. I believe this nomination is anti-cruft run amuck, or possibly satire. Cool Hand Luke 09:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please don't use VFD to make statements. There's enough work to be done here without wasting our time with stuff like this. Gamaliel 09:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. And try not to use the word fancruft. Labels do not help make a case. [[User:Xezbeth|Xezbeth]] 10:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Abstain, do not use vfd to make a point. —siroχo 10:40, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that labels don't make a case, Xezbeth, but I haven't seen the word "fancruft" challenged before on any of the many times editors have used it as a reason to delete pages. Fame and notability are not the same thing, of course, and Bucephalus is right to ask whether this is something that should be included, although I agree that it's in the wrong place. The Cliff's notes approach some take to writing about books, TV programmes and films can and should be questioned too, because the notion that more is necessarily better is not entirely correct. This article is a good example of this principle in action. What value is there to muse on the origin of the name "Picard" when you've just explained that the character was named after a guy called "Piccard"! I vote a weak keep and send to cleanup.Dr Zen 10:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of the show, but if there's a character worthy of their own page it's Picard. Besides, the Star Trek article is probably too long already for a merge. Keep [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep There's tonz of stuff here, it can't possibly be a merge. Yeah it could use some cleanup but it is notable. He isn't some random character who only appeared in one episode of the simpsons. He's appeared in every episode, every season, for 7 seasons, has starring roles in 3 movies, hundreds of books, Everyone knows who he is. Encyclopedic. I'd argue that Data is more notable, but both (among others too) definitely deserve articles. McKay 14:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Some fictionary stuff belong in an encyclopedia (and also is there even in paper encyclopedias). The problem is that you have to draw a line somewhere (just like with things that exists in reallife). Picard is an obvious keep while many of the articles about Pokémon are examples of things that should be purged from wikipedia. Jeltz 15:38, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is fancraft, not fancruft. Jean-Luc Picard is less notable than Sherlock Holmes but clearly notable. Good article, well written, apparently well researched, thorough, and detailed. Having never watched more than an episode or two of the series I cannot personally verify accuracy but it has obviously received many edits, obviously has a pool of interested contributors, and there are no indications of edit wars or POV struggles in the history, so I'd wager it's fine. And it says right at the top of the VfD page that "personal views on the subject matter per se are usually not relevant" and "This page is for articles that are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles which merit a change in the deletion policy." I think listing this on VfD was inappropriate. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The problem becomes where the place is to set a new precedent--I'm not sure I know, and I suspect many people don't. Oh, and keep. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:15, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. [[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 16:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep this particular one: Any fictional character that exists outside of its fiction deserves to be discussed outside of its fiction. I.e. people will refer to Ahab from Moby Dick who have never read the novel. People will refer to Captain Kirk who have never seen "Star Trek." Those characters who are referred to outside merely of their fictions need representation in an encyclopedia. That's what many of the Greek mythology entries are, after all: characters from stories that are referred to or re-used by later authors. Note that this excludes Data's flipping cat, the cartoon school girl's best friend, etc. Geogre 16:23, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Not quite as notable as, say, Captain Kirk, but still notable enough. (But as Geogre points out, Data's cat isn't adequately notable). Average Earthman 17:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment This is why we should have sub-page capability in the main namespace. I agree that it's silly to have an regular article on Picard. But it makes perfect sense to have a Star Trek/Picard subpage. Wolfman 17:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep putting this here is an abuse of vfd. Kappa 17:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Let me first say that I agree that a show must achieve a certain level of notability to merit more than just one article, and that even for a show which deserves multiple articles, it does not deserve separate articles for every character. However, as pointed out before me, ST:TNG is certainly a notable show and Picard is certainly notable within that show. Furthermore, if it is true that this page was VfD'ed to make a point ("See, if you keep the lead character from a very prominent TV show, you are forced to keep this character who appeared for two minutes in one of the five episodes of this show!") then I condemn the bad faith behind it. The question of how much detail is too much and how much is just enough are judgement calls; to try and force a judgement on a page now to set a precedent is nothing less than trying to prejudice future judgements. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough to have a wide enough base to write a good encyclopedia article. - RedWordSmith 18:14, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What's it say on the top of the page here? This page is for articles that are candidates for deletion according to the current deletion policy, not for listing articles which merit a change in the deletion policy. In the second case, visit Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and suggest a policy change. --jpgordon{gab} 18:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm quicker with the old vfd trigger than some people but this article absolutely must stay. I was actually startled to see it here. Picard is the central character of a long running tv series, part of the world's most popular fictional sf universe. It doesn't get much more notable. --LeeHunter 18:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't try to use VfD as a platform to campaign for policy change. Modargo 19:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Geez. Keep, of course. This would be a really, really, really, really bad precedent if we started deleting articles about major fictional characters. What's next? Dracula? Sherlock Holmes? RickK 19:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
  • There's a line to be drawn, of course, but this is pretty far over it. Characters like Alexander Rozhenko and Keiko_O'Brien would be better thought experiments. Keep. --Fastfission 21:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Too much detail? What is that? 62.252.0.4 21:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Some soap star's favourite type of music is country is too much detail. HTH.Dr Zen 22:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If there's room for a page on Meg Gallagher, there's certainly room for Picard. In a paper encyclopedia, neither would make it. Besides, there's a strong pro-SF bias here; tell me you'd find Buck Rogers, Perry Rhodan, and Flash Gordon in Britannica. You'd certainly not find such completeness--& that is hallmark here.