Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Reed (Star Trek)

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 delete. Sandstein 17:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Reed (Star Trek)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This remains mostly in universe - the kind of thing I would love to be at Memory Alpha but not what we demand of the articles for our fictional characters. I do not believe that there is enough of the right kind of coverage in sources to suggest notability. The coverage that includes Reed is instead things like lists of characters or general coverage of Star Trek Enterprise. There is no doubt we should have coverage of Reed in Wikipedia just not as a stand alone article. This should, instead, be a redirect. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, going after primary cast of a Star Trek show? Dramu is incoming. The article is in a very bad shape, through this is not an issue at AfD. The current references are garbage (in passing/PLOT). Nonetheless despite what some may think, I am not out there pinning for every fiction article to be deleted, and Star Trek does tend to be written about. Here's what I found: 1) Duncan Barrett; Michèle Barrett (5 August 2016). Star Trek: The Human Frontier. Routledge. pp. 236–. ISBN 978-1-315-51648-6.: one paragraph about the character's sexuality 2) [1] low-tier academic article with a sentence of analysis 3) that's it as far as scholarly analysis go. I was hoping to find something to save it, but I could not. I expect of course we will get the usual link farm of plot summaries from news, blogs and like; maybe there will be few hidden gems, enough to rescue this - ping me and I'll review sources presented when that happens. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I compared the sources for this to characters for TNG and DS9 and, on the whole, found much better footing for those characters. Unsurprising given the popularity/longevity of those series compared to Enterprise. This analysis matches the sort of coverage you found of him in a book on Star Trek. I'm guessing that lots of sources will be brought to bare. I look forward to being shown notability and proven wrong. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable fictional character.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because there's more than the secondary sources already mentioned by User:Piotrus. The twilight of identity: Enterprise, neoconservatism, and the death of Star Trek also comments on the character's sexuality. Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek: Allegories of Desire in the Television Series and Films describes and comments on a scene involving the same topic on p. 45 and comments on the character as a whole on p. 123. Using Superheroes in Counseling and Play Therapy gives a one-sentence-characterization on p. 248. Star Trek: A Cultural History on p. 32 briefly describes his development. That's what I have found within limited time. Then there's the online articles already present in the article. And a great many more secondary sources that give plot-summary information. So even if none of these sources is extremely long, taken together this should meet WP:GNG. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this character fails GNG per Piotrus. The sources brought up by Daranios is insufficient per his own admission, “Let’s just add all the passing mentions together” is not how SIGCOV works. Imagine if we did that for articles on companies. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The character has passing mentions in many secondary sources. The ones I have chosen, however, all have some analysis/evaluation within them, so they are not passing mentions. "insufficient per his own admission" is a misrepresentation of what I wrote. If SIGCOV does work differently than I think, please point me to where it says "significant coverage has to be within one source, other sources have to be discounted". Image how much smaller and poorer Wikipedia would be if we did that overall. Daranios (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence long analysis is the very definition of a passing mention. You cannot combine passing mentions from different sources to make “full” sources, that’s not how SIGCOV works. Also, SIGCOV is at least a paragraph of coverage, and in reality is almost always more than that. You have consistently misrepresented sentence-long coverage as significant. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) If a source contains analysis, that's not trivial, no matter the length.

2) Some of the eight sources found so far have only one sentence, some have more.

3) You tell me that that's not how SIGCOV works. Please show me in the guidelines, so that I know that that's indeed what the community has decided, and not your interpretation of it. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an actual definition of a passing mention, and that's not it. WP:GNG says, "Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton, that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band." That's not one sentence of analysis, it's mentioning that something exists while you're talking about something else. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST: I've found another brief discussion of the character in a newspaper article, "'Star' power" by Bridget Byrne, Associated Press (Sept 2001), saying that the actor is uncomfortable playing "the gunman" in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I do think that many sources with a small bit of information about character development and analysis each can be used to assemble a worthwhile article and demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As mentioned several times above, there is a lot of passing mentions of the character, but no real significant coverage in reliable sources that actually demonstrates independent notability. Being a major character in a notable show is not automatically a guarantee of independent notability without significant coverage in reliable sources, which Malcolm does not have. I was initially going to suggest that it should be used as a Redirect to either Star Trek: Enterprise or List of Star Trek characters, but I think Malcolm Reed (character) would be the more proper name for a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2020 (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.