Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim (Star Trek)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 08:24, 4 February 2007 (→‎[[Joachim (Star Trek)]]: Delete,). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Joachim (Star Trek)

Joachim (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

In-universe, plot summary article about a non-notable character. Corresponding article on uber-Star-Trek-site Memory Alpha has scant content. Ditto for licensed Star Trek encyclopedia. EEMeltonIV 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Memory Alpha is mostly canon, and the Star Trek encyclopedia is canon-only. This character is notable because of his accomplishments in non-canon literature. TenaciousT 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the case, he should not be here. Please see WP:FICT. --Dennisthe2 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save - Jesus EEMeltonIV Who died and made you Wiki God? Drearwig 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero real world significance. Merely a plot summary. Unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. MER-C 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...is the superior... Otto4711 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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.
  • The rumors 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.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenaciousT (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - Note that this guy does appear in both Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, plus a gazillion books. Certain media franchises, such as Star Trek, Star Wars and The Simpsons, extend notability to even relatively minor characters and subjects therein. The article author hasn't provided WP:Verifiable sources to establish WP:Notability and therefore will probably lose this debate. Unfortunate, since for this character they certainly exist. Also, this editor doesn't seem to really understand "Wikipedia culture" and that won't help. - Shaundakulbara 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add WP:Verifiable Sources & Keep -- if not: Delete - This article is a notable one that should be included, in my opinion, but all articles need to have verified sources. (For some reason the phrase "Verify or Die!" comes to mind. :-) ) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT. 80% of this article is a recounting of the plot of TWOK. Some of the rest is speculation or uninteresting fleshing out, for a character with relatively small screen time. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT, and note that my mind can be changed. Please, find reliable and verifiable information for notability, and adhere the WP:FICT link as well. Note, he was indeed a secondary character - and they tend to lean toward unnotability. --Dennisthe2 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, I'm going to go for a precedent set by Alien (film), and suggest that we Merge this and relevant articles into one article, with appropriate redirects. --Dennisthe2 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are less notable Trek characters with their own articles, and Joachim is a major character in ST II (which, as a primary source, should satisfy WP:V, along with Space Seed. 23skidoo 06:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:ILIKEIT, and note that the existence of other data on Wikipedia that is otherwise not for Wikipedia does not mean that it should exist. --Dennisthe2 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's not a major character. If he wasn't in it, the film would be the same. He changes nothing, and only provides dialogue to show Khan's thinking. Totnesmartin 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 23skidoo--IRelayer 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of notability and indepented sources as already voted on the original discussion. In the film STWK, the main source for the current article, Joachim's part is actaully listed as not credited. (Personally I actually saw the film two days ago and did not even remember Joachim's name and was completely surprised that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim referred to him.) BTW, Starbuck (Moby-Dick) is, of course no page but a redirect to Moby-Dick. Tikiwont 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - this character no life outside Khan's activities, except at the end of the film. Not notable enough for an article. Comment What are these "gazillions of books" that he's in? Why aren't they in the article, and is he more than a spare part in them? Totnesmartin 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have an easy answer for the question you pose (why aren't the books that he's in cited in the article?). It is because I wrote the bulk of this article Thursday 2/1 and it was marked for deletion not even a day later. I knew it wasn't perfect and had a lot of work to be done, but I decided to put it up in an imperfect state and let the Wikipedia community help the article evolve and grow. It never had a chance to do that. There's volumes written about this guy but I don't see anyone spending effort and time fixing this article when it looks like it's just going to be deleted, just days after it was put up. I'm not taking it personally at all that this was tagged, but I do think it goes against the Wikipedia sense of community to afd something before other people have a chance to let the article evolve. TenaciousT 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some things get AfD'd for starting as stubs. I once had an article (Sulk) deleted without even a debate because of that. However, if you wrote it a month ago you've had plenty of time to add to it. Totnesmartin 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I wrote it on Feb 1 - two days ago. TenaciousT 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, British and American dating systems... apologies. In two days you have fair grounds to gripe. I would too. Totnesmartin 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Memory Alpha. Unreferenced article that violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as merely a plot summery of the character's action with no context or sourced analysis. --Farix (Talk) 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no evidence in the article that this extremely minor character satisfies the requirements of WP:FICT. Delete. Or should I say, "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee... For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee..." --Charlene 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I frequent Memory Alpha for my Star Trek fix, but I just watched The Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan so I thought I'd pipe in. The character is very notable when you take it in the context of the movie AND the TV show. If one watches the Extended Director's Cut of TWOK along with the audio commentary and bonus features, you see the intent of the creators' to make a strong Joachim character. (The actor is uncredited because his agent screwed-up. He was supposed to have top billing!) This article can be cited, verified and cleaned up, but it will take time. To paraphrase Khan, time is a luxury this article doesn't have. Having said that, I think it's a shame this article was AfD'd the same day it was created. I agree with the author, TenaciousT, that it never had a chance for peer review. Some of Wikipedia's best articles started out as uncited, unverified, POV crap but through a long process, they get better. I say we give this article a chance, or move it to Memory Alpha. Loki44 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficiently notable character that does not warrant its own article. Doczilla 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, OR-based, and supported only by highly dubious keep arguments.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable character from notable movie. TonyTheTiger 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. seems notable enough; if it was a stub I'd say delete, but there's substantial info there. - 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable character, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sandstein 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joachim_(Star_Trek)&oldid=105531767"