Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kor (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. east.718 at 02:48, December 22, 2007

Kor (Star Trek)

Fails WP:FICT. Non-notable character who appears in only a few episodes out of the hundreds of Star Trek episodes. His appearances could easily be covered in the episode summaries for those few episodes (one TOS, one animated, 3 DS9). Discussion was attempted about merging into List_of_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_characters, but it went no where. An extremely minor character and considering he only appeared in 3 episodes and lack of notability within the series, I don't think merging would be good either. Collectonian (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - good luck with this. Ejfetters (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep May have appeared in only five episodes, but still a notable character to Trek fans. Alberon (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been listed on the talk page for WikiProject Star Trek. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Pointing out that someone who appeared in three different Trek series shouldn't be merged into the third one he appeared in is hardly "went nowhere". An "extremely minor" character wouldn't have had episodes in three different series focusing around him. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 13:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - extremely minor characters have been in several episodes before, can you honestly say that Vash, who was in 2 TNG episodes and 1 DS9 isn't extremely minor? I can think of more examples if you'd like me to. Ejfetters (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Kor is a significant secondary character. Published sources for real world analysis are available for him. The article is not in that bad a shape in its current form. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable character. Number of episodes the character appeared in isn't necessarily an indicator. Khan Noonien Singh only appeared in one episode and one movie, for example. Rray (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sorry my fellow fans, but this targ don't hunt. While I disagree with the "extremely minor" tag, this character lacks notability even within the universe (more a fan favorite than a character contributing to development and plot; even historical importance is more "within series" than "within universe"). Mention on the appropriate lists of characters, and include a link to the Memory Alpha wiki. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for The Washington Times to write an article about him: "Kor has place in memories, may return". DHowell (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please post the entire article for reference? Thank you. Ejfetters (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he can't, because it would be a copyright violation. He provided the reference, that's sufficient.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me, the only reason I asked for the complete article was so I could incorporate the obvious real-world information into the article. You can provide a link to copyrighted work without copy/paste which would be a CV. Without being able to use the article how would we improve on it. You yourself posted complete articles in the Lwaxana Troi discussion which can now be worked into the article. If we can't get the information to add to the article then delete - if we can have the information so we can edit the article with the notable real-world information then keep. I just don't see your argument, you want to cite real world information, but not have the article incorporate the information? Ejfetters (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any usable citation will have to refer to the paper edition of the 3 Sep 1995 Washington Times with a page number. It can be verified with a visit to the research dept. at a library (possibly in a microfiche collection). The pay link preview says the relevant information is out there. A Google Books search points to other real world comment about the Kor character. My keep vote above is based on the belief that editors still know how to hit the books. • Gene93k (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I am reading of this reference, it is about the actor, not the character (despite the title of the article). That would not constitute a valid source to determine notability. To establish notability, the subject of the article must be the primary subject of the reference, and that does not appear to be the case here. My interpretation of WP:N is that in order to establish notability, the article must focus on the subject of the article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His appearances across Trek series demonstrate his notability. The character is also featured in several novels, which adds to the notability established by his TV appearances. - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What's the harm? I happened on the article following a link from John Colicos, browsing through the actor's career. Having it as a separate node was helpful -- I'm hardly going to search through 100s of individual episodes on such an idle quest. Isn't this what hyper-text is all about? Eleuther (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly don't delete. If Keep fails, then merge and redirect to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#K. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a notable character. 68.152.95.130 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per JasonAQuest. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The only two sources provided are sources that are not independent of the subject (a book by a person who worked on the Star Trek series, and the official Star Trek website.) A topic must not only be notable to "trek fans", but must also be notable enough for multiple reliable publishers to write something significant about the topic. The Washington Times article mentioned above comes close, but we need one more. Sancho 23:27, 21 December 2007 (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.