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.
According to
WP:SCHOLARSHIP, PhD theses are acceptable, these theses are Masters and Bachelor-level. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." --
122.108.141.214 (
talk)
08:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The quality of the first reference is disappointing, the entire section on him, while spanning three pages, is a plot summary. I don't see any analysis of his real world impact. Second link is broken (The Flinders University webpage you were looking for cannot be found) and since you did not provide a title or such, there is no way I can even discuss the source. The last source provides us with the following useful content: "Weyoun is typically portrayed as a diplomatic and jovial character, but his loyalty in the Founder means he disregards morals for the sake of faith as a conscious choice. His faith leads him to commit terrible acts in their name and at their command, such as ordering the execution of innocent individuals and also committing genocidal purges.75 His story and eventual downfall, as he dies protecting a Founder, demonstrates the lengths a person is willing to go to for the sake of one's beliefs". Useful, but I don't think this is sufficient for a stand-alone article. I still think this doesn't need anything else than 2-3 sentences in a relevant list. Soft deletion through redirect with no prejudice to merger, as I wrote above, would be totally fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
But
Piotrus, the problem with your 'no prejudice against a merger' argument is that it's not binding on other !voters or the closing administrator, as we've seen at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination). Since there are no outright delete votes, why don't you withdraw the AfD, merge the content, and we can close this discussion as 'consensus to merge' if anyone disputes it? The content gets merged, the allegedly NN article no longer exists as a standalone, and the contribution history is preserved in case someone comes up with more than you or I did and wants to expand it. What's wrong with that approach?
Jclemens (
talk)
18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Simple. It means I have to work to save content that I don't think belongs here. Given that this is already better described at MemoryAlpha, I don't see why I should waste my time trying to do so. Even if this is deleted, soft or not, it won't be a loss to anyone. I have better things to do than saving fancruft like this. If the community agrees it is a problem, the article will be deleted/redirect with no loss to anyone. If the community decides it should be kept, then I'll learn from that outcome. I don't see any reason I should be the one to spend time doing the merging - this should be left to someone who cares about the given topic more than, clearly, I do. PS. I really do think that in cases like EA we should be using soft deletion, and you are welcome to ping on me in any relevant discussion about undeletion/soft redirecting/changing our policies to make it so (pun intended). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
And yet, you do nothing to follow
WP:BEFORE or
WP:ATD. Your contempt for the content and the people who contributed it is as palpable as it is elitist. You admit you don't care, but belittle ("Fancruft") those who do. Oh, "Memory Alpha"? That might pass
WP:ELNO #12, but most fictional elements won't have an appropriate destination, and even if they did, then that destination would likely not be suitable as an external link. Real problems like POV pushing, astroturfing, and a dozen more serious issues pervade wikipedia, and yet you focus on destroying things that are, at worst, non-notable.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Jclemens - according to my reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, neither of the theses are of high enough quality to count as sources. Could you please address this? --
122.108.141.214 (
talk)
23:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge & redirect as suggested by nom. I did some reference checks, no references seem to substantiate him as significant. I'm a bit of a trekky, and I like the Weyoun character (and Jeffrey Combs is an excellent actor!)... but don't see this character as significant enough to warrant his own page.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
03:06, 22 May 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.