Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation

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. In space, no one can hear it

WP:SNOW.(and yes, I know that's an Alien allusion, not Star Trek) postdlf (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced trivia. Almost no references, every drop of info is in-universe fancruft. No out-of-universe notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure about this one. A search on 'Lwaxana Troi' finds her name turning up in multiple archived news stories and any number of books about Star Trek. She at least may be a notable fictional character. I haven't checked the others. Praemonitus (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. These are significant characters in an extremely notable and popular series. Several of them could be the subjects of articles in their own right, although they have been placed here for various reasons. Deleting this article would degrade our encyclopedic content without any compensating benefit; I question the rationale for this nomination. (As a minor point, we might want to retitle this article; it isn't really a List.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, which ones are notable? So far, 99% of the article is in-universe fancruft with no assertation whatsoever of real-world notability. If you're going to say "keep, it's notable", then
WP:PROVEIT. I could say that an article on my own ass is notable because it exists, but that doesn't make it notable automatically. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

The silly, petulant tone used does your argument no favours. I can see from a cursory glance at the list, plus (sadly) a little personal knowledge that there's no difficulty in referencing this list/page and absolutely no difficulty in asserting notability. Lwaxana Troi for example was portrayed by Star Trek creator's wife Majel Barrett Roddenberry, who also played Nurse Chapel in the original series, Lore, the android was played by Brent Spiner who in addition to his main cast credit in TNG has appeared in numerous Hollywood blockbusters. Guinan was played by an Acadamy Award winner and her back story would prove central to one of the TNG films, Generations. These characters were central to numerous episodes, films, and indeed to different series. That's not to say the page couldn't do with a re-write to take it more from the Memory Alpha perspective to the proper Wikipedia perspective, but it's in no way just unsourced trivia. Nick (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, there is little doubt that at least a majority of these characters are real-world notable, and I don't see any evidence that you sought to ascertain whether they were or were not before putting this article up for deletion. And given that the article as a whole should clearly be kept, talkpage discussion among knowledgeable editors, rather than an AfD, is the right place to assess whether each specific character mentioned in the article should be included or not. It would of course be better if the article had more references, but that is true of a great many articles on all sorts of subjects, and it would be a misuse of the AfD process to nominate a clearly keepworthy article for deletion in order to compel an accelerated improvement of the referencing. Finally, I see little value to the bizarro-Kmweberish and gratuitously indecorous reference to "your own ass" as a notability comparator; if I did not have a reputation for civility to uphold, I would say the question is not whether you ~~are~~ have a notable ass, but rather whether "your own ass" is where you drew the inspiration for this nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Try searching for any of these in Google Books. They are generally significant enough characters to be included, and sufficient sources exist. --Michig (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (none of them wear
red shirts) and rename List of recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm not a fan of TNG, but these really aren't minor characters, and this is a popular series (god knows why). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There are numerous books and magazines about Star Trek: TNG. This article prevents people creating individual articles on the characters, but these recurring characters are part of a very famous and widely analysed fictional universe. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Sources. Where are they? They won't add themselves. Don't say "keep" unless you plan to fix the article. I see this all the time. Everyone screams "keep, it's notable", but then six years later, the article is still an unsourced pile of fancruft. Are you expecting the Source Fairy to tap her wand and make it FA overnight? Get real. Do some work or don't bother saying "keep". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning established by NYB. — Ched : ? 09:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll take this one on. I think there is some room for the article to be changed drastically. I'm going on a RL holiday shortly so it won't till I get back, but I at least now have the Deep Space Nine Companion too to use as a source. Certainly the ones which already have general articles should be included with a link through to the main article - off the top of my head, that would include Q, Miles O'Brien and Ro Laren. Perhaps something similar to List of The Vampire Diaries characters is warrented but I'll see what I can do first. I expect that Guinan would end up qualifying for an individual article as I know that there is a fair bit out there on the character as well as information related to how they intended to bring her into DS9 at one point. I'll see what I can do, as I could do with a break from episode articles for a bit! Miyagawa (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a "Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion" in a Google book search, but haven't checked Amazon or anything for it. If I spot it at our local used book store I'll grab it though. TY Miyagawa. — Ched : ? 12:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm building up a small library thanks to a few purchases on eBay. I have three sourcebooks on TNG now (including the final edition of the companion), one on the original series (although one of the TNG books also covers TOS), one on DS9, and the one on Star Trek Phase II. I've spotted at least five more books I'd like to get. Unfortunatly it's turning into an obsession. Oh and archive.org is a godsend - you wouldn't believe how many interviews that have been deleted from the Star Trek website but have been saved through that website. I'm pretty sure I have sufficient sources to cite everything currently in the article, but I might as well expand it while I'm at it. I've become slightly obsessed with improving the good/featured/dyks on Star Trek recently. Miyagawa (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Newyorkbrad. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid list article. Also, the nominator should remove the pointless citation needed tags he placed everywhere. If the section mentions what episode the information is from, please don't mindlessly spam "citation needed" after it. Read what's written before putting that tag all over the place. Dream Focus 14:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a lot of the useless tags. [1] If the short paragraph that list the information, also list what episode or book this happened in, it doesn't need a citation tag. Dream Focus 14:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.