Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arex


 * 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   merge to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(A–F) . Spartaz Humbug! 04:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Arex

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This Star Trek character has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  22:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "has no sources" is not a valid deletion rationale. Did you look for sources, per WP:BEFORE?  Please describe your research.  Also, please discuss potential merge or redirection targets for this, given that it's related to a well-established multimedia franchise.  If you can't address these issues, I suggest this be closed as speedy keep and any problems with this article can be dealt with through normal editing.  postdlf (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge abbreviated summary to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(A%E2%80%93F) (he's not covered at all); redirect to AREX and add a hatnote to AREX pointing toward the list-of for ST character. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds like the best solution. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete @Postdlf: No out-of-universe context or notability. "Has no sources may not be the strongest argument, but then, if there are sources, why don't you add them to the article? --Crusio (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "has no sources" isn't a deletion argument at all, let alone a strong one, because whether or not an article is currently sourced has nothing to do with whether it can be sourced. "I've looked for sources per WP:BEFORE and can't find any" is a deletion argument.  But there's still the need to consider, at a minimum, whether this is a useful search term given that it's a character from a notable TV series and franchise, and EEMIV has suggested a proper merge and/or redirect target.  postdlf (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that when the nominator writes "has no sources", that it is meant that no sources turn up after a Google search either. If the nominator is wrong about that, then show us... --Crusio (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already communicated to Jj98's talk page my issues with his WP:VAGUEWAVE deletion rationales, failure to follow WP:BEFORE, and failure to consider alternatives to deletion in many recent AFDs (none of which has anything to do with assuming good faith), so I didn't want to bring that up again here. One more thing I forgot to point out re: your first comment: at least half of the sentences in the article are out-of-universe, in that they list the works in which the character appeared ("Arex is a Starfleet officer" = in-universe; "Arex appeared in Star Trek: The Animated Series and was voiced by James Doohan" = out-of-universe). Such works are, further, primary sources, so "no sources" is incorrect.  The lack of secondary source coverage (if that is the case) is at least part of a good argument for not maintaining this as a standalone article, but not sufficient for outright deletion given that this can be merged into a preexisting list and it's a reasonable search term.  You never did address those non-deletion alternatives: this is a character who appeared in multiple works, in multiple media, in a highly notable franchise, so it should be covered somewhere, even if only minimally.  Which is a matter for normal editing to resolve, or at minimum attempted first before resorting to an AFD.  postdlf (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * STRONG KEEP, LEARN TO GOOGLE There's an entire article on this character in Feb. 2, 1974 St. Joseph News-Press so the nominator's idea that "This Star Trek character has no sources" is totally wrong. It's also covered in the Nov 30, 1986 Chicago Sun-Times story "The Vulcan mind probe": "In the animated version of "Star Trek," the bridge crew gained a new navigator named Mr. Arex, a native of the planet "Edoa." Besides having a deep hue of ..." It's also covered in "Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry": "Fortunately, the animated Star Trek was generally a well-produced product, but the quality was principally in its writing ... With that freedom, two new crew characters were created: Lieutenant Arex, with three legs and three arms, ..." It's also covered in the book "Saturday morning fever": "Two crew members were therefore added to the regular mix, Lieutenants Arex and M 'ress .." Also the book "Sci-Fi Baby Names": "Brick-colored tripodal alien from the planet Edos who serves as navigator of the starship Enterprise on Star Trek: The Animated Series. Known for his lightning-quick reflexes, Arex leads a solitary existence when away from ..." So, yeah, plenty of sources for this character. Nominator needs to work on their Google search skills before saying a topic "has no sources." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LEARN TO BE CIVIL AND DON'T SHOUT. The "article" in St. Joseph is decidedly minor (and without any out-of-universe context) and the Chicago Sun-Tilmes "story" is, as far as I can see (it's mostly behind a pay wall), a trivia quiz. The cites from the books given seem to be in-passing mentions. Now how does this establish notability for this particular character and the needed out-of-universe context? --Crusio (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, actually when sourced analysis from a newspaper talks to a real-world person like Gene Roddenberry about the real-world context of how a real-world animated series allows real-world writers and real-world illustrators to create more alien characters like Arex because of the relative ease of drawing aliens vs. live actors in special effects make-up, that is the exact opposite of an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we just don't live in the same real world... --Crusio (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Good finds! See also Articles for deletion/Scrappy-Doo, in which the same nom (and same "delete" !voter) incorrectly insist that no sources exist.  I've already brought my complaints to the nom's attention here; I hope he'll take note and learn from these.  postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sharksaredangerous, or merge per EEMIV. As long as the content is preserved either way, and eventually it will be expanded with the sources Sharksaredangerous found.  postdlf (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: There is no evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline and I do not see anything to suggest the any article about him can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. A search engine test does not show reliable third-party sources that address the fictional character in detail to presume that he deserves a stand-alone article. No reliable secondary source gives reception or significance for the fictional character, so I do not see a valid presumption to keep the article. Since the article has no verifiability due to the complete lack of references, all content is original research by synthesis at best, so I believe that a merge is not justified. Jfgslo (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note This AfD was closed by a non-admin (without marking it as a non-admin closure). Non-admins are only supposed to close AfDs with a clear outcome (and I think it is obvious that we have good policy-based keep and delete !votes here). In addition, the closing editor seemed to be unclear about several aspects of AfD closing (see User talk:Sprinting faster for discussions about multiple closings by this editor). I have therefore reverted this so it can be closed properly by an admin. --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. Letsgocrazytogether (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be a minor character in the Star Trek universe. The first reference of this article is not about the Arex character  . It is about the original series and its reception in Great Britain in 1969. The Arex character is mentioned in one half of a sentence as is the movies and the animated series that followed. This does not demonstrate signifigance of this character.

The second reference (St. Josephs) just rehashes what is available on in-universe web sites, and has no real world context pertaining to this fictional character. The third reference to the Chicago Sun times is a trivia quiz. This is not a really a reliable source, nor is there signifigant coverage of the character named "Arex".

An abstract of the fourth reference   appears to indicate this about "Star Trek - The Movie". There is no indication that this is about the charcter named "Arex", nor any real world context pertaining to this character. Also this article was published in 2007, which is 33 years after the animated series first aired. Based on what I have seen so far, how could this source have any relevance to a minor animated character?

If there are reliable sources for such a minor fictional figure I don't see them in this article. Also I don't see anything outside of an in-universe perspective with Google searches. The real world should be the primary frame of reference, and real world sources are certainly lacking. Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:INFO. Steve Quinn (talk) 05:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To say the St. Josephs article is "rehashing what is available on in-universe web sites" is curious, given that it was published in 1974. That a newspaper went out of its way to describe a cartoon character is not meaningless.  Re: the "fourth reference", the Gazette article, it is citing a statement in the WP article that the character was featured in a comic book series that is "a continuation of the original series' five year mission"; the title of the article is "Comic fills gap in 'Star Trek' chronology"; and the abstract says that there is a chronology gap in between the events of the original Star Trek series and the events of Star Trek: The Motion Picture.  So clearly that article is about maple syrup extraction.  postdlf (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like it has received coverage in reliable 3rd party sources, much to my surprise. It appears to me that this meets Notability (fiction). Qrsdogg (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge: seems appropriate for some kind of list. Pretty minor character with not a lot of coverage. But there is coverage. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge Mentions in articles don't equate with significant coverage. This minor fictional character can go into the list. Hekerui (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge per Postdlf,s argument. I read the St Joseph's article and the while the coverage of this character is not super significant, neither is it trivial. I haven't evaluated the other sources (and yes I know multiple supersources are required) but it's obvious to me that Arex shouldn't be a red link. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.