Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mackenzie Calhoun


 * 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 no consensus. Arguments roughly divided between both sides after three relists. (non-admin closure) f  e  minist  13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Mackenzie Calhoun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not your household Star Trek name - this is a comic book/novel character. Sources are primarily primary (novels, etc.). Influences section looks promising - until one realizes it is based on a mailing list/blog comments by the author who invented this character (primary/OR/self-published/etc.). There is nothing to suggest this character has significance outside niche fandom discussions, and certainly nothing that warrants him being in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The character indeed debuted in a novel (not a comic book), and Peter David's site is indeed a blog (not a "mailing list"). I created this article before I fully came to understand the mportance of WP:PSTS. I'll try to find secondary sources for it. Nightscream (talk) 06:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep 1) No deletion rationale advanced: even if it's non-notable WP:ATD expects that it be merged or redirected. There's no question it's verifiable.  2) Several RS'es exist, specifically in the 'news' and 'books' sections of the above Find sources AFD template, sufficient to meet GNG. 3) As a notable author, Peter David's own comments meet WP:SPS. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No keep rationale advanced. If you want to merge, vote so or do it, there is no rule saying merge has to proposed before deletion. I don't see what could be merged - he deserves a one-sentence on some list of ST characters at most. WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES - please cite them, and please don't cite in-universe plot summaries; those are not sufficient. And no, author's comments about his own character on a blog/discussion list/social media/etc. don't suffice to establish a character's notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , there never needs to be a keep rationale: rebutting the delete rationale is sufficient. In this case, as nominator, you are positively asserting that nothing in WP:ATD is relevant--not improvement, not merging, not redirection--and that therefore the existing article should be removed from Wikipedia and nothing left in its place.  Your nominations consistently fail this, and I do find it quite frustrating that you seem immune to any education on your responsibilities as nominator. You think all it take is starting an AfD that says 'NN, delete' and then anyone arguing keep has the burden to provide sources.  Sorry, but WP:BEFORE makes it clear that the nominator is expected to do the work beforehand. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. Both deletion and keep arguments need a rationale. And I provided my rationale: failure at WP:GNG. PS. I am quite fine with soft deletion, merging and redirecting, and you should know that by now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How many times need I explain 1) that you need to do WP:BEFORE, 2) how to do it effectively, and 3) how to communicate your findings to justify deletion as opposed to any other outcome preferred by WP:ATD? Seriously, what part of that is unclear? Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * How many times will you try to change the topic? There are no good sources. The low quality sources you found don't help. I saw most of them BEFORE, and I dismissed them as garbage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The article relies too much on primary sources without showing significance of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The article says "Calhoun is the only Star Trek character that has not appeared in any of the Star Trek television series or movies to have an action figure." without a source. I'd be interested in learning more about that. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   11:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As requested here are a couple of sources that mention an action figure:, , eBay, and this is likely the most interesting of the four, quite critical of the figure. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You cannot seriously think those are reliable, and on topic. That he has action figures doesn't make him notable, and the product description plus few blog fan comments on the figure are hardly helpful for anything except to reference a sentence saying he has an action figure - which, again, does not make him notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep thanks. I'm not convinced it's a useful article personally, but I'm convinced it meets notability guidelines. Power~enwiki (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you say why? Keep in mind WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid argument, statements need rationale behind them. You think it is notable because.... ? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no argument provided for deleting the article. It's clearly not WP:TNT and I'm convinced it passes WP:GNG as well.  Why do you want to delete the article? Power~enwiki (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because as you said yourself (contradicting yourself) he fails WP:GNG. If he does not, do say how he meets it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I said he fails WP:GNG. Simply saying that all the references are "Star Trek related" doesn't mean they can be ignored. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They can when they are all plot references: he is only discussed in 1) works of fiction where he is a plot element 2) summaries of plot element like Star Trek encyclopedias, omnibuses, etc. 3) social media fan discussions (blogs, forums) and 4) merchandise pages (reviews of action figurine). There is not a single reliable reference discussing his significance, etc. The burden of proof to show he is notable is on the article creator(s) and those voting keep and so far that burden has not been fulfilled. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good sourcing, also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which sourcing is 'good' here? Do you mean the novels? The blog review of the action figure? Or perhaps you refer to my favorite, 'Advertisement printed on the inside back cover of multiple Star Trek novels published in 1998 and 1999.'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters: I am not convinced about this particular character's notability as I do not necessarily see a significant amount of coverage on this subject in third-party, notable sources. It would be greatly beneficial if the keep votes could provide the links to the sources that support this character meets the notability standards, as I can see all of the information regarding this subject fitting rather comfortably in the list article. I would be more than happy to change my vote to keep if I could see more links (and I do not believe the links about the existence of an action figure are particularly useful in this context). While I think the Peter David links are good and permissible, I think this article needs a few more third-party sources on the development or reception of the character would greatly help to support this subject's notability. I apologize for the length of my response and I look forward to a longer discussion about this. As someone who greatly enjoys creating articles about fictional characters (and I have received some notes about their questionable notability as well), I would greatly appreciate hearing a little more from the "keep" votes. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the claim for notability is that he is the most notable character from New Frontier, and that there are enough references to support a stand-alone article rather than merging into that list. I'd consider references in the context of Star Trek (the TV series) to be sufficient; I don't believe there's consensus as to whether those exist. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response; it just would be helpful to get some links to the references that are considered as enough support to satisfy the notability standards. If I could see those links, I would be more than happy to change my vote, but I just am not seeing them when looking online. Aoba47 (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * From a Google news search, is the best I can find for the character, and that's a trivial reference.  actively avoids mentioning him by name but does reference him. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I do not believe that those two sources (especially the Hollywood Reporter one, which is extremely trivial) is enough to support the notability of this character, but I will leave the discussion to other, more experienced users. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric  05:30, 19 May 2017 (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.