Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Number One (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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number One (Star Trek)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor Star Trek character, this page is mostly an unreferenced collection of trivial and speculation. Since ST literature is extensive, there are few sources mentioning her in passing, but I don't think they suffice for stand-alone notability; at best I'd recommend a merge to The Cage (Star Trek: The Original Series), if deletion is not the preferred outcome. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Covered adequately in the Majel Barrett and The Cage (Star Trek: The Original Series) articles. There's very little sourced content here so I'm not convinced a merge anywhere is merited. --Michig (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, striking my Delete, but unless it can be expanded with properly sourced encyclopedic information beyond what is (and could be) included in the two articles I identified, it shouldn't be kept indefinitely. --Michig (talk) 19:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to The Cage. I personally think the character, having appeared in the pilot episode of the successful Star Trek franchise, would have notability attached even if the character had not subsequently appeared in other media forms.

There are numerous works that break down 'The Cage' and other bits of Star Trek from anthropological standpoints, pop culture standpoints, psychology. Trekkies like to wax poetic about the subject, and a number of Trekkies are notable enough to get their rantings published. As 'Number One' is one of those Star Trek mysteries, I'm certain I can dig up something that mentions the character in more than just passing. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep GNG met, commentary notes in article that character had to be removed from the show due to then-current sexism. Sufficient commentary on the real world impact of a fictional character is the best of all reasons to keep a fictional character. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Some examples: Gender, Science Fiction Television, and the American Security State, Integrating Women into the Astronaut Corps: Politics and Logistics at NASA, Star Trek: A Hidden History, "Star Trek" in the 1960s: Liberal-Humanism and the Production of Race, Political Science Fiction, Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry’s “Vision of the Future”: The Creation of an Early Television Auteur, Music, Race, and Gender in the Original Series of Star Trek (1966-69). I think that's MORE than enough, and I think I shall now proceed to WP:TROUT the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sexism discussion is promising, but this makes here ONEEVENT/ONEDIMENSION type of character. I still don't see why this cannot be merged into the episode discussion. But if you could try to rewrite it, removing the fan cruft like the Star Trek: New Frontier new section, and adding content from sources you found (sadly, most of them I cannot access; only the discussion in the first source seems in-depth, through I AGF this may also happen in some that I couldn't access), we could save this article? PS. I was thinking more about this, and I am really close to withdrawing this, but I am really not sure if there is that much we can write about her; I have tried accessing the sources through my university account. The first two book publications overlap but do provide a 1-2 page discussion on how her character was rejected due to sexism. "Star Trek: A Hidden History" doesn't seem to mention her (but I cannot even get a preview, just search query result). The coverage in [1] seems to be limited to 2 sentences on page 7, which summarize what is discussed in several paragraphs [2] coverage is also about as short. [3] seems to again overlap with the first two sources. [4] also discusses the same facts that other articles have established. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. After further thought, I think the sources found by Jclemens are sufficient to show that the character has received coverage and analysis that go beyond in-universe plot summaries (analysis of her character particularly in the context of sexism that caused her to be written out of the show).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. Michig if you want to strike your delete opinion this can close per WP:SK #1, otherwise it continues. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep has certain prominence outside of fictional universe. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.