Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martok

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. Particularly since the relist and further improvements to the article, there is now a good consensus that the sourcing and coverage in the article is sufficient to fulfil the notability requirements and warrant a standalone article. ~ mazca ^talk 09:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Martok

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

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

Minor if recurring Star Trek character, sadly seems to fail GNG. Reception is limited to a few "Top 10" lists (which per this RNS discussion) are not considered reliable nor helpful in establishing notability (anyway, they tend to be pure plot summary). I am not seeing anything else (note there is some stuff like [1] about J. G. Hertzler, the actor who played him, but this is not the same). There is a sentence here or there in some minor WP:INTERVIEWS with Hertzler like [2]. He has short plot summaries in printed "Star Trek encyclopedias" like [3] but those sources are not independent anyway (they are just shorter, print versions of wikias for folks who want to have a dust-gathering Star Trek book). Overall, I am afraid there is little to salvage here - sources show no SIGCOV, are either plot summaries or about the actor (not character). At best, redirect to List of Star Trek characters (G–M). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nom. That is, while I greatly appreciate Piotrus' efforts to enumerate what is available on this character, I disagree that it is insufficient to establish notability. Most specifically, dead-tree books about the franchises are independent, transformative works. A plot summary, for example, is necessarily transformative in that at any point where it does not echo the script or the resultant fictional presentation, it abridges the primary sources and makes an editorial decision about what is important and what is not. Further, RS which discuss the character as portrayed by the actor contribute to notability for both topics: if there's a rule that says there must be an either/or decision, I'm unaware of it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - The reception listicles are trash, so those are useless. The sourced development info probably has a home somewhere, but I'm not sure if it necessarily needs to go with the character. Given that the additional sources provided by the nominator are limited to trivial mentions for the most part, it doesn't appear to be anything that can meet WP:GNG available at this time. TTN (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Jclemens that the ratings of such sources as Syfy Wire counts for something, providing non-plot information, as does the Star Trek Explorer. We have plot-summary information in print. But in addition a WP:BEFORE search at Google Scholar reveals more: For "The Klingons as Homeric Heroes" I can only see the preview, but that provides a sentence of analysis already. 'This Side of Paradise' gives a bit of characterization. The Fifty-Year Mission, the officially unofficial and therefore independent encyclopedia, has a bit of background on the character origin/development. Kultur- und Sozialklingonologie, an analysis of Klingon culture, has a bit more of in-universe information about Martok. And We only want to be your partners: Star Trek: Enterprise - politisch-ideologische Dimensionen einer Fernsehserie zwischen Kaltem Krieg und war on terror has both personal characterization of the character of Martok, as well as comparing him to real-world politicians, and what type this character represents if the Federation and the Klingons are a reflection of the two sides of the Cold War. Even if the treatment in each of those sources is not very long, together they can easily fulfill the requirements for "more than half a paragraph" of WP:WHYN. Daranios (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daranios, "The Klingons as Homeric Heroes" - if we cannot access full-text (I can't, either), WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. For 'This Side of Paradise', I see only the abstract which does not mention the character. For the Fifty-Year Mission, I was able to find a copy, but I can't find any SIGCOV inside. All I see are few sentences of plot summary and a bit about Hertzler ("He’s a terrific actor and was a great Klingon. Very charismatic and fun."). The best I see if from an interview with Ira Steven Behr who says "I always felt that Martok was the truest Klingon that the series had. Martok was a great character and he was full-blown Klingon. I watch that final episode of the series and Martok is just having so much fun". I am sorry, but that's not SIGCOV. Your next source, as you yourself admit, is only in-universe information, so is useless for establishing notability. The last book is in German, and I cannot translate it, so I will withhold any analysis, outside stating the obvious - he is mentioned in five sentences over two pages. That may, more may not, constitute SIGCOV. So far I am not seeing much that would warrant keep - the only English source I could access does not contain any SIGCOV. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: About "The Klingons as Homeric Heroes", the preview snippet already calls out General Martok as one of three exemplary Klingons, and so while I expect that there is more, this is not a case of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, but as I've said a sentence of non-in-universe content can already be written without full access. "is only in-universe information, so is useless for establishing notability" is not in the policy. Of course we additionally want to fulfill WP:ALLPLOT, but that can be done with the other sources. As for the rest, it's the usual thing: None of them are book-length or something, but taking them together we can write more "than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" and more than "only a few sentences", so we can fulfill WP:WHYN. So why shouldn't we.

I guess I should add: In case all sources together are still not deemed enough for notability, a merge is of course preverable to deletion. I think the section one could potentially write would be unwieldy in List of Star Trek characters (G–M), though. Daranios (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Daranios, If a sentence is all we can write then I have serious doubts whether SIGCOV is being met. Half a paragraph is better, but can it be written? I do appreciate your efforts ([4]), I really do, but I am afraid that is still not enough for GNG. Have you asked if someone at WP:LIBRARY can help us access [5]? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Piotrus: Here I have a suggestion: I am not familiar with WP:LIBRARY, so how about you ask there if we can get more insight into "The Klingons as Homeric Heroes" via that route, while I'll work on the German sources when I have the time - probably in the coming week? Daranios (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daranios, Done, pinged you there, you can email the volunteer there for the article, but they say they don't see any SIGCOV of Martok in the full text either :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! I've been able to use a bit more from the full article, but not very much. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Jclemens & Daranios. Starspotter (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dbutler1986 (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens and others above. Significant enough character to be included. — Ched (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NorthWoodsHiawatha (talk)
• Keep Martok is a central character in the later seasons of Deep Space Nine, at the center of the relationship between Klingons and the Federation and essential to the resolution of the story arc for Worf, not to mention becoming leader of the Klingon Empire, resolving the whole conflict between Federation and Klingons across three series (17 seasons) of Star Trek. Possibly one of the most frequent Klingon characters in the show, after Worf; I could go back and count. The show itself is the source establishing this character's importance; Martok appeared in 27 episodes, and not as a minor character. If the page needs improvement, let us know. I don't understand the urge some people have to make Wikipedia less useful. Avt tor (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avt tor, "The show itself is the source establishing this character's importance". No, that's not what WP:NFICTION says. In-universe importance is irrelevant for us, per GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a flaw in the guideline. Hence my comment I don't understand the urge some people have to make Wikipedia less useful." Ultimately television shows are only relevant because people watch them and incorporate the ideas of the show into their lives. The question here is not whether Martok is relevant, it's whether Wikipedia is relevant anymore. Avt tor (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Martok is a central character to DS9 - but generally also to the Klingon fictional culture. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Since I am not a Star Trek fangirl, I find the above votes - not even arguments - that this should be kept because it is "central to Star Trek" hardly convincing. This is a general encyclopedia, not a fan page for some TV show. Outside fans, what scholars or even journalists say this character is important? - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GizzyCatBella: The scholars, journalists and writers who have written the discussed secondary sources have, who may or may not also be fans. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom (good line, Jclemens!). Like Gizzy, I am not a Star Trek fanboy; unlike her, I believe Wikipedia is a general and specialized encyclopedia. The sourcing for this character permits quite a bit of mention in a specialized encyclopedia, let alone the bizarre "specialized except for FANCRUFT which is BAD" attitude Wikipedia sometimes ends up with depending who's at AfD any given day. Both the nomination statement and Daranios demonstrate significant coverage in etc etc you've all heard it before and by extension a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Vaticidalprophet 04:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sources found are nothing more than in-universe plot descriptions and some minor analysis that is not extensive enough to count as SIGCOV. Arguments that this character is important are not relevant to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Devonian Wombat, Indeed. Closer of this AfD will do well to remember WP:AFDNOTAVOTE, WP:ITSIMPORTANT... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...and remember WP:WHYN and WP:AtD, I am sure. Daranios (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Daranios, AtD, certainly, which is why I already suggested a redirected target in my OP, and I'll also note I fully endorse WP:SOFTDELETE. He may become notable one day and then we should be able to restore it easily. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yet we have a deletion vote here despite the fact that there's some non-plot information in the article, and more in the found sources, which seems at odds with WP:AtD to me. Daranios (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom He appears in more than 20 episodes, SyFy's rating alone is enough to establish notability. castorbailey (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Martok is more than a peripheral, recurring character like Weyoun, clearly indicated by the number of appearances as a major character in some of the many episodes. BUT as per WP:RS, more than just blogs or clickbait sites (i.e. ScreenRant) must be cited. With such a paltry list of cites for a "major" character, I'm not convinced of the notability of this character. Editors need to find more primary, reliable sources. Meantime, merge into the List I just linked to without any loss of content. A Redirect to the new location would be appropriate. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 05:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Non-notable recurring Star Trek character. Even if he's notable within the universe of the show, that's what Memory Alpha's for, not Wikipedia. The sources on the article are largely just lists, which aren't a strong source. I don't think the books mentioned within this discussion are enough for notability standards. Could be redirected to a list of Star Trek characters. Waxworker (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Only voting because I saw this listed at the DRV with a canvassing concern, so thought I'd add in an independent 2p, but unfortunately I agree there is not enough GNG-quality coverage to support a stand-alone article on this character. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I specifically do not believe any of the "X best Star Trek characters" list posited below for meeting WP:GNG actually meet the GNG. Clickbait lists generally don't lend themselves to significant coverage. Still in favour of a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or redirect to List_of_recurring_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_characters. I'm not identifying any significant coverage of the character. Wikipedia is not Fandom! (t · c) buidhe 14:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: (from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 18#Martok) Not commenting on whether the subject is notable here, but if the article should not be standalone, List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters#Martok is a better merge/redirect target than List of Star Trek characters (G–M) as List of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters#Martok points to this article as the main article. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 15:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A quick look about seems to meet my muster for the GNG (reliable journals, websites, magazines, books), so I argue to keep the article. If the empowered closer opts not to keep it, I'd prefer a merge to list of recurring Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters—which itself needs loads of work. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since the beginning of this deletion discussion, the article has been significantly expanded with real-world related information and character analysis based on secondary sources. There's a IMHO decently-sized paragraph of analysis, which alone goes beyond both the WP:WHYN requirements and, in total, Piotrus' "If a sentence is all we can write then I have serious doubts whether SIGCOV is being met. Half a paragraph is better, but can it be written?". I hope this is taken into account when the opinions based on "there is only some minor analysis" are evaluated. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daranios, Outside the German source, all fail SIGCOV, we are not even summarizing them but repeating the one sentence or so they have about the subject in its entirety. Now, the German source might be fine, I cannot verify the extent of the discussion there. GNG requires multiple sources that discuss the topic in-depth, so we are in the borderline situation - we have one, plausibly, and then a bunch of mentions in passing or pure plot summaries... which is why I am suggesting SOFTDELETE. This can be restored once we find a second source that meets SIGCOV. Rules are rules, and I am a Trekkie myself, but as User:Buidhe pointedly said above: "Wikipedia is not Fandom!", for better or worse (btw, long ago I argued we should be much more inclusive for fiction, but community decided otherwise, so we have to observe the rules about notability...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: But needing specifically 2+ sources in each of which we need broad coverage is not in the rules. The rules say we need significant coverage, we need multiple sources, and they must not be trivial. The other is an interpretation, and to see if that is required, we should look at why this rule was installed in the first place. Otherwise we run the risk of following the letter over the intent. And looking at that, I think there is no reason why a hundred sources each providing only a sentence of non-trivial coverage should not fulfill WP:GNG just as well as two sources with long coverage.

So to stick to the example of "The Klingons as Homeric Heroes", that provides only a sentence, but how can the analysis, that Martok's behaviour can be compared to a Homeric warrior be considered trivial? (Which, by the way, is not something Fandom would cover.) On the other hand, if you are rather looking for length, The Star Trek Encyclopedia and Kultur- und Sozialklingonologie and this SyFy article each do have longer treatment (as does the Top Ten Klingon list, but the use of listicles is a different discussion).

Lastly, in what way do the deletion and redirect-only voters think the complete removal (in the case of softdelete at least for the reader) of all that's in the current article actually improves Wikipedia? And do the merge voters think that everything here that has reasonable secondary sourcing is really presented in a better way for the interested reader in a disproportionately large section of a list? And if it does not improve Wikipedia, well, WP:IAR is a policy, WP:Notability in comparison is "only" a guideline. Daranios (talk) 11:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stringing together a bunch of trivial sources does not equate to significant coverage. Significant coverage is required on a source by source basis. It doesn't keep editors from using more trivial sources if they benefit the article, but there are some things too trivial for Wikipedia to cover. That's the content that gets discarded during GA/FA campaigns when there's actually enough information to establish notability. That seems to be the bulk of the content being used here, improperly weighted content to give the illusion of actual substance. Reaching what one would consider the bear minimum of non-trivial sources does not mean an article is suitable for inclusion. Properly curated character lists utilizing important real world information are vastly superior to a bunch of semi-stubs. There is nothing that has been shown so far that indicates this article is ever going to improve significantly. TTN (talk) 11:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: How is the comparison of Martok with a Mycenean warrior trivial? How the comparison with Michail Gorbatschow? How is this a "semi-stub"? You are advocating for "Properly curated character lists utilizing important real world information", but you have also voted "redirect". So do you think the current one- or three-sentence entries in the lists in question, with one or no secondary sources, are better than at least merging content from here to there? Do you think anyone searching Wikipedia for Martok will be happier with the list entries as they currently are (there's your "semi-stub"), as compared to getting this article, imperfect as it may be? Daranios (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Daranios, I still think this is borderline but the discussion is sharing towards keep now, and given that the article does look much better than when I nominated it [6], if it is kept, maybe it's for the best. Thanks for (likely) rescuing it and (certainly) improving it! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Sources are fine. [7] is just fine, written by SYFY WIRE's Senior Producer for the West Coast. Two paragraphs each in CBR and screenrant are fine as sources. And even fairly brief mentions in academic sources gives us enough sense of real-world impact. I'm good. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the nomination which details numerous satisfactory sources. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have to say that the Syfy and CBR sources seem enough to fulfil GNG to me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep At first I was going to suggest that this article take its place in a "list of Star Trek characters" article, but upon visiting the article and seeing how much information is there, I say keep it. StarHOG (Talk) 21:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looking at the article and sources, I think there is enough to pass the minimum standards of GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2021 (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.