Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arex

Arex

Arex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This Star Trek character has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 22:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• "has no sources" is not a valid deletion rationale. Did you look for sources, per WP:BEFORE? Please describe your research. Also, please discuss potential merge or redirection targets for this, given that it's related to a well-established multimedia franchise. If you can't address these issues, I suggest this be closed as speedy keep and any problems with this article can be dealt with through normal editing. postdlf (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Merge abbreviated summary to List_of_Star_Trek_characters_(A–F) (he's not covered at all); redirect to AREX and add a hatnote to AREX pointing toward the list-of for ST character. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • This sounds like the best solution. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
• Delete @Postdlf: No out-of-universe context or notability. "Has no sources may not be the strongest argument, but then, if there are sources, why don't you add them to the article? --Crusio (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "has no sources" isn't a deletion argument at all, let alone a strong one, because whether or not an article is currently sourced has nothing to do with whether it can be sourced. "I've looked for sources per WP:BEFORE and can't find any" is a deletion argument. But there's still the need to consider, at a minimum, whether this is a useful search term given that it's a character from a notable TV series and franchise, and EEMIV has suggested a proper merge and/or redirect target. postdlf (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I assume that when the nominator writes "has no sources", that it is meant that no sources turn up after a Google search either. If the nominator is wrong about that, then show us... --Crusio (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I've already communicated to Jj98's talk page my issues with his WP:VAGUEWAVE deletion rationales, failure to follow WP:BEFORE, and failure to consider alternatives to deletion in many recent AFDs (none of which has anything to do with assuming good faith), so I didn't want to bring that up again here.

        One more thing I forgot to point out re: your first comment: at least half of the sentences in the article are out-of-universe, in that they list the works in which the character appeared ("Arex is a Starfleet officer" = in-universe; "Arex appeared in Star Trek: The Animated Series and was voiced by James Doohan" = out-of-universe). Such works are, further, primary sources, so "no sources" is incorrect. The lack of secondary source coverage (if that is the case) is at least part of a good argument for not maintaining this as a standalone article, but not sufficient for outright deletion given that this can be merged into a preexisting list and it's a reasonable search term. You never did address those non-deletion alternatives: this is a character who appeared in multiple works, in multiple media, in a highly notable franchise, so it should be covered somewhere, even if only minimally. Which is a matter for normal editing to resolve, or at minimum attempted first before resorting to an AFD. postdlf (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP, LEARN TO GOOGLE There's an entire article on this character in Feb. 2, 1974 St. Joseph News-Press [1] so the nominator's idea that "This Star Trek character has no sources" is totally wrong. It's also covered in the Nov 30, 1986 Chicago Sun-Times story "The Vulcan mind probe": "In the animated version of "Star Trek," the bridge crew gained a new navigator named Mr. Arex, a native of the planet "Edoa." Besides having a deep hue of ..." It's also covered in "Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry": "Fortunately, the animated Star Trek was generally a well-produced product, but the quality was principally in its writing ... With that freedom, two new crew characters were created: Lieutenant Arex, with three legs and three arms, ..." It's also covered in the book "Saturday morning fever": "Two crew members were therefore added to the regular mix, Lieutenants Arex and M 'ress .." Also the book "Sci-Fi Baby Names": "Brick-colored tripodal alien from the planet Edos who serves as navigator of the starship Enterprise on Star Trek: The Animated Series. Known for his lightning-quick reflexes, Arex leads a solitary existence when away from ..." So, yeah, plenty of sources for this character. Nominator needs to work on their Google search skills before saying a topic "has no sources." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)