Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vic Fontaine

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Fontaine[edit]

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

Yes, this is a long article about a minor (secondary) recurring character from ST franchise that has a GA status. Sadly, GA criteria for some weird reason do not include meeting notability, and this is a major problem here. The lenghty section on appearance, concept, development, etc. are based on primary sources: Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, some episodes, as well as even Memory Alpha, a wiki (and other wikis are not allowed as sources for Wikipedia, something that should've been picked up in a GA review because reliability of sources IS a GA criteria...). Then we get to the 'do or die' section, ie. reception, or the two short paragraphs. First, not a single source deals with the topic (character of Vic) directly. They simply mention him in passing, in few senences at best, a bit more if they are reviews of episodes in which he appears and plays a more significant role. While we could consider merging it to List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, that list is a repository of otherwise non-notable content and would likely fail AfD itself. As this kind of topic is much better covered by Memory Alpha anyway, I think we should simply consider deletion of this, as a non-notable fictional character. PS. I am a Trekkie myself, I like Vic, but it doesn't change the fact I don't think this kind of non-notable topic has a place here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep The DS9 companion is an independent RS, as are tor.com, io9, the AV Club, and Den of Geek. All the other references appear to be used appropriately, but even if some of them were eliminated, the GNG is met by a mile. Jclemens (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sources not currently appearing in the article include a peer reviewed article hosted on ed.gov, [1], [2] for three separate independent RS mentions. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the character is a semi-major one in a major TV series and the article includes good detail. It would be a shame to lose it from Wikipedia. Because of the article's detail and the characters significance to the series, I don't think merging would be appropriate. The book source seems reasonable, even if it is a little insular. I'm inclined to think that removing the page would be a net loss to the encyclopedia. Mortee (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article has several independent, reliable sources that support its existence, and the sources provided by Jclemens further supports this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I only ever expanded this from a redirect on the basis of having sufficient sources to evidence notability. The DS9 companion is an officially licenced work, but it is not a primary source. The authors are one step removed from the process, as in they spoke with the person(s) involved with production. That is the definition of a secondary source. Within this source there is a section specifically on the creation of this character. Unusually in the article there is a reference to Memory Alpha - this is because they've archived an AOL Chat on that website which isn't available elsewhere, but this isn't part of Memory Alpha which is user generated. Miyagawa (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. BOZ (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just coming from another Afd supporting Jclemens sources and their argument. The story is the same here. Per Jclemens, I support keeping this article. Lourdes 05:56, 1 February 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.