Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deanna Troi


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. It's WP:SNOWing, it's WP:SNOWing! (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Deanna Troi

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

In universe character lacking in out of universe analysys. Sources are almost exclusively tabloid character rankings by websites like Screenrant and the like. Notability not shown F.Alexsandr (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Popular culture. F.Alexsandr (talk) 06:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  10:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Question With regards to Notability not shown, Wikipedia's deletion process asks the nominator to look into the notability of a topic (which is largely independent of the current status of an article) before starting the AfD discussion. Was this WP:BEFORE search done and what were the results? Daranios (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Daranios (talk) 12:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep I mirror Daranios' question. What due diligence was performed in researching this article for deletion? Yes, this article needs improvement, but would you then move to delete all of the major characters from TNG? The most serious change I would agree to is consolidating all the characters into one article, but looking at the length of some of them, this would be stupid. StarHOG (Talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - The current "Reception" section of the article definitely needs to be rewritten to not be a series of "times the character was mentioned in some top ten list", but even just a very quick, cursory search brought up several different books and journal articles on gender depictions in Star Trek and TV in general that have non-trivial discussion of Troi as part of them, such as these three examples. Rorshacma (talk) 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Sources 3, 5, 9 and 10 are fine for GNG. Rest is gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Rorshacma's examples are excellent sources. Keep per WP:NEXIST. Toughpigs (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is enough already in the article and shown here to satisfy GNG in my opinion. Rhino131 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Oaktree b, sources are there. This is never going to fail GNG. There may be PAGEDECIDE questions for fictional characters, but I suspect this one will always be judged to merit a spinout. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability is clearly established with the sources in the article plus those provided here. Daranios (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2024 (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.