Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Grayson

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Grayson

[edit]
Amanda Grayson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable tertiary character. Recent "rewrite" of the article includes such winners as original research speculation that the character descending from Arthur Conan Doyle, trivia about Vulcan-human hybrids in Enterprise, unsubstantiated claims about the character's popularity. Don't be fooled by the list of "references" -- they verify casting information and plot, but also include a fan site and a wiki. There's no reason whatsoever for this article to exist, or for this topic to be covered beyond the confines of List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. (Editor undoing redirect has failed to address talk-page concerns, or even remove {{inuse}} for that matter -- generally seems clueless about unaware of WP:GNG, and I'm taking him up on suggestion to reach broader consensus through AfD.). --EEMIV (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually i left the "in-use" up because i was still working on the article. i've completed a first draft reworking of it & would welcome feedback on ways that it could be improved. Lx 121 (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge. Amanda Grayson deserves to be a bluelink; however, it should be a redirect to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. There isn't enough depth of coverage for the article to exist outside the list. —C.Fred (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. As Fred notes, the effect would be that one would type in "Amanda Grayson" and be directed to the section of the characters article that applies to her, and add a link to the Star Trek wiki (Memory Alpha). That wiki is the place for an epic size article about a character who can be described in one sentence ("She was Spock's mother"). Mandsford (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't care, but since the established practice is to do bio articles about major trek characters, she qualifies, so keep EEMIV & i have been having a battle of wills over this one, which he fails to mention.
1. EEMIV blanked & redirected the page, which has been around for years, without discussing it first
2. after i restored it, he again blanked & redirected it
3. he cited "lack of references" as a reason for his actions
4. after i added references, he is now proding the article
User EEMIV has a track record on unilaterally blanking & redirecting pages on minor subjects, that's borderline vandalism.
getting back to subject; i'm not really that interested in trek, but as an encyclopedia, the practice on here is to allow bio articles for notable trek characters. amanda grayson meets the test of notability, & her notability in the context of the "trek universe" is increasing, therefore the character should have a bio-page.
granted the article is crap & needs to be re-written, most of the trek bios are crap, but they do meet the acid test of notability.
here are some stats that might be worth considering
views of the amanda grayson article in april 2009
13068
article views in may (as of may 19)
36889
http://stats.grok.se/
the surge is presumably due to the film, but more than 10000 people are looking for this information, in a given month. that means the article is serving a useful purpose. it also means the subject is notable enough for people to be reseaching it on wikipedia.
Lx 121 (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, none of that particularly matters -- including viewer stats, or whether it's useful. The character's appearance in the movie is...one more appearance; assertions that her is increasing are unsubstantiated. While Grayson may be significant within Star Trek as the source of Spock's human heritage, this does not equate to notability. There is no indication anyone has cared enough about the character to offer a real-world treatment beyond identifying the actors who've played her. Furthermore, it doesn't even translate to the assertion that it is a "major character" -- with four? five? appearances (depending on whether you count five-second birth scenes, I guess), and at most a few dozen lines of dialogue, Amanda really doesn't play a big role. As with Red matter (Star Trek), this seems to be a case of enthusiasm for something recently on folks' radar -- but that's insufficient grounds for inclusion. --EEMIV (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. you didn't check the imdb references. 2. i've done a first draft reworking of the article, to make it more encyclopedic, it's still very much a work in progress & i could use help, as i'm not really that "into" star trek. anyone who wants to contribute would be welcome to do so. 3. i do admire your endless ability to churn out WP! i've lost count of how many WP's you have cited in our extended exchanhe onthis subject. personally, my favourite Wp is Break The Rules! Lx 121 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. The character is important, not only because of the movies and episodes she appears in, but because she and her husband have quite a following in ST fanbase (lots of fanfiction, etc.) The information about her needs to be kept anyway, the question is whether it needs a separate article or has to be merged in a Star Trek characters article. In my experience in Wikipedia whether something qualifies for its own article doesn't depend on the subject's significance in its given subculture, it has to do mainly with the volume of text -- if more than a few paragraphs can be written about it, it deserves its own article. (As for recentism, please note that the article is over five years old.) – Alensha talk 14:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rewrite in progress, could use help/opinions/people who know more about trek than i do Lx 121 (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- A re-write is certainly necessary, but with the recent movie, and with Winona Ryder playing the part, notability and verifiability standards have been met. Like I said, needs re-written from an out of universe perspective, but that requires work, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Star Trek characters: G-M#G. No significant notability established beyond the character's inclusion in the Star Trek franchise. Many paragraphs could be written about minor or occasionally recurring character in the franchise, but we'll leave that to the denizens of Memory Alpha. If a write up could be done on the character as has been performed on the articles for the major character from the franchise (Kirk, Spock and McCoy spring to mind, then I might change my mind. Alastairward (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There appears to be enough notability to keep material related to the character, especially since there is a new movie in which the character is portrayed by a very famous actor; but it looks like the consistent pattern with other Star Trek characters is to merge them into lists, unless they are absolutely the most major notable high-profile characters of all the series/ movies/ stories. Grayson does not appear "big enough" to warrant her own article, but is obviously notable enough to need inclusion in a list. ~Teledildonix314~Talk~411~ 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the appropriate amount of material. No reason to delete; no reason to nominate for deletion because we'd always have at least a redirect. DGG (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - If Sarek stays separate, then this page should too. Otherwise, merge them both into List of Star Trek characters. She appears in two TV series (TOS and TAS) and in three films (TVH, TFF, and ST 2009). Certainly seems notable to me. On second (third) though, there's really not much to the character except for "She's Spock's mom." -- Aatrek / TALK 20:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right; I've updated my rationale.-- Aatrek / TALK 18:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note. I have flagged the article with the {{Merge}} template and invited interest editors of the article to comment on the merger here, in the aim of centralizing discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding a merge: All the appropriate, cited and non-trivial/speculative content in the Grayson article has been merged to that list. --EEMIV (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case the appropriate action upon closing this AfD would seem to be changing the article into a redirect to the list. Preserving the history for attibution purposes and any value someone might find in the content. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • um, no you have an interesting idea of what constitutes "All the appropriate, cited and non-trivial/speculative content in the Grayson article", here is the complete text of the entry you wrote in that list:
Amanda Grayson (Memory Alpha article)
Jane Wyatt
Majel Barrett
Cynthia Blaise
Winona Ryder
Journey to Babel (TOS)
Yesteryear (TAS)
TVH
TFF
Star Trek (XI)
Spock's human mother, married to Sarek.[1] In one timeline, she dies at some point between the events in The Voyage Home and the Next Generation episode "Sarek".[1] As depicted in the 2009 Star Trek movie, she dies when Vulcan is destroyed. Grayson was first portrayed by Jane Wyatt, who appears in both "Journey to Babel" and The Voyage Home. Majel Barrett provided the voice of Amanda in the Star Trek animated series. Cynthia Blaise played her in The Final Frontier'. In the 2009 Star Trek, the role of Amanda Grayson was played by Winona Ryder.
you kind of left a WEE bit out; the article is 6.9k, with references which you didn't really bother to check, at least according to the conversations we've had elsewhere. you fail to mention that she turns up in the novels, repeatedly, didn't mention anything about any of the fanfiction. wikipedia doesn't just do "canon" you know. you also didn't do a very good job of differentiating & explaining the different timelines, nothing about her origins, didn't include links for spock or sarek, didnt really define the family relationships as clearly as you should have in a fiction piece, dropped the honourific from her name, neglected to explain what "the journey to babel" is, or provide a link. actually, in general you're assuming (too much!) that read reader knows quite a bit about trek; you neither explain the references you make, nor provide links for them.
i could picture your redaction of the article on "the bible" to an entry in a list of religious books: the bible, it's this book about god & various related subjects...
btw the amanada grayson article page on wikipedia is holding steady at an average of around 2000 views per day: http://stats.grok.se/en/200905/Amanda%20Grayson
clearly there is nobody out there who's interested in finding this information on wikipedia...
Lx 121 (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just that we have different ideas of what constitutes trivia and what constitutes a citation. Most of the content in the "biography" section is uncited and trivial (and some of it is simple fan-drooling speculation). Ditto the pronouncability of her Vulcan name, or the fascinating history of where her surname comes from. Immaterial, irrelevant, and most importantly inconsequential when it comes to understanding the character's role. Beyond that: simply appearing in novels doesn't particularly matter; fan fiction is mere vanity that rarely warrants reference anywhere at Wikipedia. Spock and Sarek are, in fact, linked. The family relationship is succinct, but clear (without devolving into trivia about orders of monogamous spousal relationships). "Journey to Babel" remains linked in the appearances column, but I'll go link it (and all the other things that might be too confusing) in the blurb itself to make you happy. etc. etc. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; considering Amanda Grayson is such a minor character, her coverage at the List of characters is entirely appropriate, in keeping with her prominence within the franchise and the Wikiproject's general consensus about how much arcane trivia and plot summary is appropriate to maintain. For details beyond that, the List of... offers a handy link to the fanboy-friendly in-universe character write-up at Memory Alpha. --EEMIV (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Grayson&oldid=1069614599"