Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dukat (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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dukat (Star Trek)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). References are to primary sources (almost entirely startrek.com website). No indication of importance (no non-primary sources discussing importance, reception). I an sure we could find a few sentences discussing him in passing in reviews of DS9 episodes, etc., but unless someone can dig out a reliable, in-depth, non-primary treatment of the character, I am afraid he will still fail said notability policies. While we could consider merging it to List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, that list is a repository of otherwise non-notable content and would likely fail AfD itself. As this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway, I think we should simply consider deletion of this, as a non-notable fictional character. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if delete is decided upon then anything that is retained might be better here in the Deep Space Nine article as it already mentions Dukat? Dunarc (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters#Dukat. He is one of the major villains, perhaps the archvillain, of the series. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

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

Keep While the current issue only references the one RS (DS9 companion), he is discussed in multiple academic books and articles. It's kind of puzzling that the nominator apparently has no clue how much academic commentary science fiction (a genre itself rife with social commentary) television shows pick up over time. Same thing goes for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, BSG, and even relatively "fluff" shows like Doctor Who. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject of major plotlines on the show he probably deserves his own article rather than being relegated to the "list of..." article. Artw (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the resources provided by Jclemens, and I would imagine there are more upon further investigation. Again, the argument that "this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway" is not a valid point of discussion for AfD as the emphasis should be placed on whether or not this article is notable and can be supported through outside sources, which Jclemens as shown in the above comment. Aoba47 (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character arc that Dukat went through during DS9 has led to a large number of scholary articles generated as described by Jclemens above and a wide range of specific coverage in books covering the series. In fact, he's probably got greater coverage than some of the main characters. Miyagawa (talk) 11:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. BOZ (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jclemens. The sources are acceptable; so is the logic to keep. Lourdes 05:54, 1 February 2017 (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.