Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porthos (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 Merge and redirect. — Edokter  •  Talk  • 16:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Porthos (Star Trek)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

An article about a fictional dog. I love the show, I do, but this is painfully minor, in relation to both Enterprise and to the real world. At most this should be a few lines in Jonathan Archer, but certainly not it's own article. -- Ned Scott 07:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is certainly notable enough to have its own article. -- Cat chi? 07:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge, and the nonfree gallery with it. I don't see any chance of substantial secondary sourcing here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Ned Scott 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions.   —Ned Scott 07:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - This article certainly has some real-world information like the names of the dogs that portrayed the character (although it could use some sources for this information). Additionally, it establishes notability when it points out, "Porthos has the distinction of being the first pet to maintain an ongoing presence in the [Star Trek] series, and even become the focus of an episode."  I think this article has a way to go, but it definitely has potential.  I think the distinction noted above would hold that this article should stay, but it needs even more real-world content like commentary from the authors about choosing to include this character.  The pictures all need fair-use rationales.  Ursasapien (talk) 07:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Comment For Ursasapien, wasn't Data's cat Spot the first regularly appearing pet in Star Trek? I also recall Spot was in the film Generations. Just a comment on your reasoning. However, I'm neutral toward the outcome of the Afd.--Torchwood Who? 08:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article mentions Spot the cat, but the character was not considered "regularly appearing" and certainly did not have an episode focusing on it. Ursasapien (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge I suggest this gets merged to the main article for Captain Archer, as per .--Torchwood Who? 09:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical that there's really any prose worth keeping, but I would support a merge as well. -- Ned Scott 09:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a "distinction" or being "the focus of an episode" are subjective terms that need substantiation from a reliable source. --EEMeltonIV 12:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete and redirect not notable fictional dog. Fee Fi Foe Fum 12:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete — another non-notable fictional dog. --Jack Merridew 10:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD might qualify for WP:Speedy Keep under criteria 2, as it seems that the nomination was only made after request for comments at WT:FICT. G.A.S 10:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is no WP:POINT violation, I honestly feel it does not meet our inclusion criteria for fiction (WP:FICT). Being related to a discussion (something that I specifically disclosed) isn't a bad thing.. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, people unrelated to the discussion on WT:FICT have already supported delete. -- Ned Scott 11:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternatively — merge to Jonathan Archer in the same way as was one with Data (Star Trek); such articles should not be deleted per Deletion policy/Minor characters, but since there is no applicable list, it makes sense to merge the dog with the owner. G.A.S 11:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with a merge, but this is definitely not a speedy keep candidate given the amount of support for deletion. There's nothing wrong with discussing a potential deletion nomination before deciding whether or not it's a good idea to actually make one, nor was the nomination clearly disruptive or vandalism. But Ned, please do watch the civility in your edit summaries, "haha" is out of line. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Trim down to one sentence -- "The Archer character keeps a pet dog, Porthos, aboard the ship during all four seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise -- and merge into Jonathan Archer. This is all plot summary without any reliable sources to assert any sort of notability. --EEMeltonIV 11:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect, Merge what is usable in other, more appropriate Star Trek articles. As per above. --Crusio 12:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing to establish notability. That from this article which can be reliably sourced should be merged into either (a) the apropos episodic articles (should they be plot-pertinent), or the Jonathan Archer article (should they be pertinent to there).  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly unnotable. Eusebeus 13:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jonathan Archer per G.A.S . Rob T Firefly 15:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into pertinent episode articles / Jonathan Archer and redirect per Pd THOR and G.A.S sounds the most plausible. Noticed Porthos is already occupied by some other minor fictional character from some novel by a Frenchman with the funny name Dumbass, so a redirect is ok but rather useless because nobody would actually type in "porthos (star trek)". The redirect would be more useful without the brackets. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Jonathan Archer and redirect Porthos (Star Trek) to it.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 17:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Jonathan Archer Dlabtot 18:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment And you could be a little more polite than 'yeah, you are SO nominated for deletion.. hahahahahaha', too. HalfShadow 22:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable and unlikely search title. Clarityfiend 03:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this was nominated out of spite, and there's no reason to delete an article that's pretty well written. R. Baley 04:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes there is. No or next-to-none notability is a reason even if the article is perfectly well written and follows all other policies and guidelines. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 06:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant to say no good reason. R. Baley 21:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit I was rude to an editor I have had a dispute with, but spite was not the reason for the nomination. I have nominated similar articles (a pet of a character) for deletion in the past, and would have come to the same conclusion regardless of who was involved in the article. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * R. Baley, non-notability is the only reason to delete an article. — aldebaer⁠ 19:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Notablility and Porthos (reply to Aldebaer): Without going into the reasons why we have a notablility guideline (treated w/common sense and exception, as opposed to policy). The notability of the dog while in the real world might be obscure, I think it can be argued that it is notable as well.  3 Google searches using three terms (porthos AND "star trek" AND archer) argue the case for notability.  The first is a general web search generating about 15,000 hits or pages.  The 2nd is a google news archive search generating 24 hits over a span of about 4 years in more than one language.  And the 3rd is a Google book search -seven books turn up.  Could these refs be added?  Don't know, but was it given a chance, or is this issue caught up in some kind of misguided article deletion grinder?  Let's go to the relevant part of the guideline. . ."when an article fails to demonstrate the notability of its subject. . ." Was anything other than this AfD tried?  Deletion is the last option among many (according to the edit summaries for instance, the notability tag has never been added- so I don't think else has been tried).  Also, it's arguable whether it was nominated in good faith, as noted by administrator Penwhale, who in a recent RfA called this nomination "The breaking point"
 * Finally, I would note that this article has been around for about 4 years, but as of this week it's supposed to be against our rules to have it? La-ha-ha-aughable, I still vote keep, R. Baley 22:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not speculate about the motivations for the nomination. Other than that: WP:AADD. The book hit, American Science Fiction TV Star Trek, Stargate and Beyond by Jan Johnson-Smith, mentions the dog only in passing and is therefore rather unsuitable as a secondary source to verify notabilty. — aldebaer⁠ 23:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles don't garner tenure. This article may very well have simply sat in obscurity, like many other Star Trek- and Star Wars-related articles created in ~05 in crush of cruft. Wikipedia is mutable; things come and go with great frequency. "It's been here a long time" is no more a reason to keep an article than "it's such a new thing" is a reason to delete one.
 * As for the Google search results -- great. What do the results actually say? What is cite-able? What is actually cited? "I don't know" to the first and "Nothing" to the latter also is not a compelling argument to keep an article. The burden of proof is on the editors adding or restoring material. --EEMeltonIV 02:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you remove/edit aldebaer's comment? why? R. Baley 08:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (unindent general comment) There are almost 200 fictional dog pages left to go. We've got a lot of deletin' to do. . . I notice that Toto ("and your little dog, too!" or did I mean to link to this again. . . I can never remember) hasn't got any refs. . .maybe start with that one? R. Baley 08:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't really try to find sources for Toto, did you? Within 20 seconds, I found at least two quotes as to his relevance within Oz, here and here. Regardless of that, the point you're trying to make amounts to WP:WAX. — aldebaer⁠ 10:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course I didn't, I don't think anybody did for this article either, it was just nominated for deletion. The first link you gave is a passing ref, and wouldn't establish notability of any kind; the 2nd is about a dog tryout at the Kalamazoo civic theater (I'm still thinking delete). And quoting essays is not an argument.  It's still just an essay (even with the WP in front of it) which is not grounded in policy or guideline (if it was, the essay would in fact be a policy or a guideline). 197 (198?) articles to go. . . R. Baley 11:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * just a note. . .EEMeltonIV deleted out a reply of yours earlier (by accident I assume, but you might be interested in replacing it). R. Baley 11:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to say I'm somewhat puzzled by this argument. Based on my reading of WP:FICT, the primary criterion for whether secondary topics (e.g. Porthos (Star Trek)) deserve their own article is whether the main article (Jonathan Archer) is too long to include the information.  Only if this is the case do we need to argue about whether the subtopic is itself notable.  Since the Jonathan Archer article is only 17k (see WP:SIZE), merging seems like the straightforward solution. Jim 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the most sensible comment on this page so far. — aldebaer⁠ 20:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I have to disagree. The rule of thumb cited by Jim addresses absorbing articles which are less than 1 kB into larger related articles and secondly addresses articles less than 30kB by stating, "Length alone does not justify division."  It does not address the situation here in terms of (substantially deleting? and) merging articles at all.  The status quo here is that we have two articles, and no majorty at present (much less consensus) in favor of a particular change from that status quo.  In the absence of a consensus to change, the closing admin should close this as a "keep -no consensus" unless there is an objective application of policy or quideline which requires action.  No purely objective argument has been given.  More importantly, the presence of hundreds of fictional animal articles indicates that there is in fact broad community support/consensus in favor of this kind of article R. Baley 09:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC). P.S. I was arguing in term of notability earlier because Aldebaer said that non-notability was the only reason for a deletion. R. Baley 09:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Jonathan Archer, preserving all of the information except the episode list. This worked well for the article on Spot (Star Trek).  See the old AfD debate for Spot on Talk:Spot (Star Trek) for some relevant comments. Jim 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a great example which illustrates precedence in two very equal instances.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 07:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge (to Jonathan Archer) — notable fictional dog. Matthew 14:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or weak merge. Porthos is probably notable enough. •  Lawrence Cohen  16:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge is probably the best solution. Assuming this can be sourced (given the amount of scondary sources for other Star Trek shows I assume they exist for Enterprise as well), there is no compelling reason for outright deletion.  Eluchil404 19:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge; is there a compelling reason for "outright" retention? --EEMeltonIV 19:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really which is why I recommended a merger rather than a straight keep. But I know that I have a higher tolerance for "fancruft" than many, especially if secondary sources exist.  Eluchil404 19:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. While I don't mind that of the material which can be verified to be merged into other articles, I'd like to ask those who say that Porthos is notable whether that's your own opinion or you have reliable and independent sources in which the fictional dog in particular has been discussed more than marginally? Notability is not a matter of personal taste. — aldebaer⁠ 19:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge - Article has some valid content, but not that much. Considering the serious is cancelled, I'm guessing it's not going to get much longer. Considering the same is almost certainly true of the Jonathan Archer article, which isn't particularly long itself, I think a merger into some other article would almost certainly happen sooner or later anyway. I might have a different opinion if the character had had slightly more memorable lines, though. John Carter 20:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete Not all that notable. AniMate 04:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Anything important, Delete, and then Redirect. i said 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge anything important, Delete then redirect - nn character. Carlossuarez46 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge without the episode list. The poor dog is "notable" for being the dog of a fictional character, it seems, not for being a character in a television show. – sgeureka t•c 01:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If any content is merged then the article cannot be deleted. Instead, the article is simply redirected, in order to keep the page history. -- Ned Scott 05:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - As I was one of the merge proposers, I want to make sure this information isn't lost and as such once the almost certain merge conclusion is made I would volunteer to merge it, but I want to wait until the decision is made. Just please don't delete it. --Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 06:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have copied the original article and a version of a merge with Captain Archer's biography section in my userspace. Please feel free to work with these two pages.  Ursasapien (talk) 06:48, 3 October 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.