Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khan Noonien Singh


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep. Nominator nominating to prove a point. Will (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Khan Noonien Singh

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Lacks real-world notability. Ejfetters (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think there would be more real-world notability as others state this is a major character in the film, but without it is should be deleted, see WP:WAF Ejfetters (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * EXCUSE ME? "others state this is a major character" -- you mean Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan wasn't enough of a tipoff? Strong Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 20:37, 4 December 2007
 * Strong Keep The movie is real world notability enough. All characters of major motion pictures have their own articles, this one should be no different. Johnred32 (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All characters from major motion pictures do not have their own articles. The character needs real-world notability, e.g casting, critical acclaim, fan reception, character development.  Many of the other Trek articles, including Picard for instance, have had real-world notability added to their articles and made a focal point on the article.  Ejfetters (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per his numerous appearances in Star Trek, especially Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Appearances alone dont constitute keeping - WP:WAF - do we have some real-world notability? If not delete, maybe merge with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan? Ejfetters (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:WAF is a Manual of Style and not a notability guideline. As such, it isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Also, Khan's notability is beyond this movie (making a merger inappropriate), as he appears in various Trek movies, episodes, books, etc. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep character is famous. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, doesn't seem to have any out of universe notability despite multiple appearances in the series. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The heck with it. Keep per consensus, character seems to have a notable role, which at least in theory would indicate some real world notability. (Forgive me, I don't know a thing about Star Trek...) Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep character is notable both within Star Trek fandom and among broader science fiction community. Rillian (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep You yourself admitted that there is real-world notability for this character. Whether it is currently asserted in the article is really irrelevant to the deletion discussion if even the nominator agrees that it exists. Incorporating it into the article is a surmountable task. Though I should also remind you that there is no deadline. This is all the more reason why things that a nominator recognizes can be fixed (even if it is something as high up on the list as assertion of notability) are not a reason for deletion. Violations of WP:PLOT or a need for sourcing (when sources are shown to exist) are other examples of surmountable problems which should be taken care of as expediently as possible, but to which WP:DEADLINE still applies. LaMenta3 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is null if someone just will find the real-world notability that so many say he does and just add it to the article. I said he is so popular he should have real world notability.  Character development, critical acclaim, fan reception, cultural impact, casting/development.  These are all real-world subjects that can make the article real-world, and these should be the primary source - good examples are Jean-Luc Picard, Jadzia Dax, and Kathryn Janeway - articles that have been improved to remove in-universe issues.  Its possible for this character too, then I will even withdraw my nomination. Ejfetters (talk) 01:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never said I know, I said I would think - big difference there. Ejfetters (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - One word: KHAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!! --Hnsampat (talk)) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for that. Thank you :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs editing to establish real-world notability, but the subject is certainly notable, even if the article needs to be edited. Rray (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the few definite keeps I have encountered in AfD. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Simply because the "real-world" notability isn't mentioned in the article, instead of recommending DELETION why don't you do some research and add the information yourself? will381796 (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment With due respect will381796, I'm not sure that this is the proper response here. It is incumbent on all editors to do research in areas where they have experience and background, as well as the responsibility of all editors to nominate articles which potentially don't belong for nomination.  Just because Ejfetters felt this article was a candidate for deletion does not make it their personal responsibility to conduct research.  The purpose of this forum is to reach a consensus on nominations that are either appropriate or possibly in error.  Please don't take this personally.  I just don't think that its proper to charge every nominator with the responsibility of researching every possible article for deletion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite proper. One of the things that nominators should always do when nominating articles for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability is look for sources themselves.  See Guide to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This character is well-entrenched in American pop culture. --Polaron | Talk 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Recently, User:Uncle G has been adding a lot of real-world content to the article. He has added an entire new section on character analysis and has given a lot of referenced information to the article. In addition, all of this is written in an out-of-universe style. The article really has improved a lot in the three and a half hours that it has been up for deletion. I may disagree with deleting it, but apparently putting it up for deletion was the spur needed to get someone to do something about the lack of real-world content. Unless someone can find something seriously wrong with the changes, or can find another thing wrong with the article as a whole, I think this discussion may be over. Johnred32 (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I see your point, keep in mind that nominating an article for deletion in order to force its improvement is essentially an abuse of process. Unfortunately, it's an abuse that too often goes unchecked, and those of us who would much rather work within the confines of proper practice are faced with the difficult decision of improving these articles and thus encouraging the abuse or leaving them be and risk the inappropriate removal of improvable content that would otherwise be appropriate. It kind of makes me think that WP:ATA should probably be elevated to guideline status, if only to discourage this kind of abuse. But that's another can of worms entirely. LaMenta3 (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, ridiculously notable if only because of http://www.khaaan.com/. Probably the best-known of all the Star Trek villain characters (as opposed to races, e.g. Klingons), and the nom should really have known that. AFD is not cleanup even if it may be abused to have that effect. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment To the community as a whole: I think there are some comments being made that can be interpreted as bordering on being a bit mean spirited to Ejfetters.  Just because this editor felt the article might lack the credentials to be an article is not reason to engage in attacks, no matter how subtle or unintended, toward the nominator.  Its pretty clear there is consensus to keep, but that does not give license to attack someone for the nomination.  Please remember to keep your ideas focused on the article, not the person making the nomination. Peace. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for that moment of Esperanza zen, but I stand by my criticism. This was a poorly considered nomination. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per everyone, especially Johnred32. Also, come on, it's Khan Noonien Singh. Maxamegalon2000 07:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per all Doc Strange (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Clear and obvious real-world notability.  Powers T 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as this is a noteable character from a very well-known series/franchise. Majoreditor (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep Please use common sense when nominating articles for deletion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hnsampat and improvements to the article. Khan is too prominent a villain. Is is time for WP:SNOWBALL? • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the edit that added "In 2002, the Online Film Critics Society voted Khan the 10th Greatest Screen Villain of All Time, the only Trek character to appear on the 100-long listing", I'd have to say so. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as a major film character in a major film in a major franchise that has articles on far less notable characters. I have to echo the comment above that nominating any article for AFD just to spur improvments is an inappropriate and troubling way of doing things. AFD (and PROD) nominations are too often the results of hair triggers as it is. 23skidoo (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2007 (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.