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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

In-universe, plot summary article about a non-notable character. Corresponding article on uber-Star-Trek-site Memory Alpha has scant content. Ditto for licensed Star Trek encyclopedia. EEMeltonIV 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Memory Alpha is mostly canon, and the Star Trek encyclopedia is canon-only. This character is notable because of his accomplishments in non-canon literature. TenaciousT 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If that's the case, he should not be here. Please see WP:FICT. --Dennisthe2 20:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Save - Jesus EEMeltonIV Who died and made you Wiki God? Drearwig 01:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drearwig, please observe WP:CIVIL. Personal attacks are out of line. Any user may nominate any article for deletion if they have a valid rationale.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero real world significance. Merely a plot summary. Unsourced and non-notable fancruft and/or original research. MER-C 01:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete...is the superior... Otto4711 02:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• SAVE - I vote to save, for the following reasons:

• The character has a significant role in the TOS episode "Space Seed," which was the foundation for TWOK.
  
• Many film scholars have stated that TWOK is an allegory for Moby Dick, with Khan being Ahab. This being the case, Joachim is very much Khan's Starbuck; loyal, but questioning Khan's actins and motives. He is more than a mere "button-pusher." He is Khan's right-hand man.
  
• In non-canon Star Trek books, Joachim is a major character, especially in the Eugenics Wars and books about life on Ceti Alpha V. Yes, it's non-canon but many readers of these Star Trek books would come to this Wikipedia page to read a biography of the character.
  
• The point was made that if Michael Eddington doesn't have his own page, Joachim shouldn't either. Well, I think Eddington should have his own page! He deserves it just as much as Joachim.
  
• The rumors that Joachim plays a major role in Star Trek XI. As time goes on, people will want to know who this guy is and this article will help refresh their memories.
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenaciousT (talk • contribs)

• • Please note that rumors he might be in a movie are crystal-ballery. Claims regarding another article fall under WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, in other words, are not a valid rationale either way.--Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Note that this guy does appear in both Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, plus a gazillion books. Certain media franchises, such as Star Trek, Star Wars and The Simpsons, extend notability to even relatively minor characters and subjects therein. The article author hasn't provided WP:Verifiable sources to establish WP:Notability and therefore will probably lose this debate. Unfortunate, since for this character they certainly exist. Also, this editor doesn't seem to really understand "Wikipedia culture" and that won't help. - Shaundakulbara 03:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Add WP:Verifiable Sources & Keep -- if not: Delete - This article is a notable one that should be included, in my opinion, but all articles need to have verified sources. (For some reason the phrase "Verify or Die!" comes to mind. :-) ) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 03:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT. 80% of this article is a recounting of the plot of TWOK. Some of the rest is speculation or uninteresting fleshing out, for a character with relatively small screen time. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FICT, and note that my mind can be changed. Please, find reliable and verifiable information for notability, and adhere the WP:FICT link as well. Note, he was indeed a secondary character - and they tend to lean toward unnotability. --Dennisthe2 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I'm going to go for a precedent set by Alien (film), and suggest that we Merge this and relevant articles into one article, with appropriate redirects. --Dennisthe2 17:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are less notable Trek characters with their own articles, and Joachim is a major character in ST II (which, as a primary source, should satisfy WP:V, along with Space Seed. 23skidoo 06:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Where? If other non-notable stuff exists, feel free to get rid of it, or ask me to do it. MER-C 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want a treasure trove of non-notability, the List of garage rock bands will keep you busy! -Shaundakulbara 08:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see WP:ILIKEIT, and note that the existence of other data on Wikipedia that is otherwise not for Wikipedia does not mean that it should exist. --Dennisthe2 17:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a major character. If he wasn't in it, the film would be the same. He changes nothing, and only provides dialogue to show Khan's thinking. Totnesmartin 17:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. --Dennisthe2 20:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 23skidoo--IRelayer 07:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of notability and indepented sources as already voted on the original discussion. In the film STWK, the main source for the current article, Joachim's part is actaully listed as not credited. (Personally I actually saw the film two days ago and did not even remember Joachim's name and was completely surprised that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim referred to him.) BTW, Starbuck (Moby-Dick) is, of course no page but a redirect to Moby-Dick. Tikiwont 09:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirm also with respect to added sources, since the main point is NN. Tikiwont 09:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - this character no life outside Khan's activities, except at the end of the film. Not notable enough for an article. Comment What are these "gazillions of books" that he's in? Why aren't they in the article, and is he more than a spare part in them? Totnesmartin 16:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have an easy answer for the question you pose (why aren't the books that he's in cited in the article?). It is because I wrote the bulk of this article Thursday 2/1 and it was marked for deletion not even a day later. I knew it wasn't perfect and had a lot of work to be done, but I decided to put it up in an imperfect state and let the Wikipedia community help the article evolve and grow. It never had a chance to do that. There's volumes written about this guy but I don't see anyone spending effort and time fixing this article when it looks like it's just going to be deleted, just days after it was put up. I'm not taking it personally at all that this was tagged, but I do think it goes against the Wikipedia sense of community to afd something before other people have a chance to let the article evolve. TenaciousT 19:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some things get AfD'd for starting as stubs. I once had an article (Sulk) deleted without even a debate because of that. However, if you wrote it a month ago you've had plenty of time to add to it. Totnesmartin 20:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I wrote it on Feb 1 - two days ago. TenaciousT 20:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, British and American dating systems... apologies. In two days you have fair grounds to gripe. I would too. Totnesmartin 20:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

supplemental having read the extra material, I'm not impressed. His film and TV role still isn't big enough to keep the article - it's not how much you describe him, it's how important he is - and he isn't really. He's also mentioned as a book character, but what he does in the books isn't stated. Is he a major character in anything? That is, does he change anything? Would the book have a different ending, or even have been written, if there were no Joachim? These questions need to be addressed. Totnesmartin 17:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Memory Alpha. Unreferenced article that violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE as merely a plot summery of the character's action with no context or sourced analysis. --Farix (Talk) 20:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no evidence in the article that this extremely minor character satisfies the requirements of WP:FICT. Delete. Or should I say, "From Hell's heart, I stab at thee... For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee..." --Charlene 21:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I frequent Memory Alpha for my Star Trek fix, but I just watched The Space Seed and The Wrath of Khan so I thought I'd pipe in. The character is very notable when you take it in the context of the movie AND the TV show. If one watches the Extended Director's Cut of TWOK along with the audio commentary and bonus features, you see the intent of the creators' to make a strong Joachim character. (The actor is uncredited because his agent screwed-up. He was supposed to have top billing!) This article can be cited, verified and cleaned up, but it will take time. To paraphrase Khan, time is a luxury this article doesn't have. Having said that, I think it's a shame this article was AfD'd the same day it was created. I agree with the author, TenaciousT, that it never had a chance for peer review. Some of Wikipedia's best articles started out as uncited, unverified, POV crap but through a long process, they get better. I say we give this article a chance, or move it to Memory Alpha. Loki44 21:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete insufficiently notable character that does not warrant its own article. Doczilla 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, OR-based, and supported only by highly dubious keep arguments.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 22:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable character from notable movie. TonyTheTiger 22:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak Keep. seems notable enough; if it was a stub I'd say delete, but there's substantial info there. - Grubber 01:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm impressed with the amount of change this page has gone through. I think it's a real article now. I've changed my vote to strong keep. - grubber 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonnotable character, no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Sandstein 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Transwiki to Memory Alpha Could perhaps improve the article on MA Tuvok ^ ^{Talk | Desk | Contribs} 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't even meet WP:FICT, and those guidelines are pretty loose as it is. GassyGuy 13:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• PLEASE NOTE: Many verifiable references have just been added to this article to establish notability. Please judge this article by its new condition, not its old. A relist for purposes of generation new discussion might be appropriate. Thanks. Shaundakulbara 14:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just took another look. My !vote, for one, stands at "merge and redirect" (above) on account of WP:FICT. Whether the character is to appear in an impending Trek film is, at this time, what I like to refer to as crystalballery, and from what I can tell, whether some of the stories he is in really are canon is highly debateable. Above, it's noted that, outside of canon, he really is notable - but here in WP, that straddles the line on fanfiction, if not actually crossing the line. See the WP:FICT link on why fanfic is specifically excluded. The agent's mistake for the billing is debateable, but I am making my decision and excluding that - because I don't have the DVD on hand. Here's the clincher that will change my mind: if there is clear cut evidence that he will, indeed, be a notable part of any upcoming movie, and that movie has crossed the line out of being crystalballery, then he gets an article. Until then, my stance is that he should be listed in an article that catalogs secondary (and maybe tertiary) Trek characters. --Dennisthe2 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. References do not overcome the problem that this is a minor character who only appeared in one episode and one film. Should not have his own article, most of which merely rehashes the plot of TWOK. By all means merge to a suitable list of minor characters, but the present article is unnecessary. WJBscribe 00:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• After looking it over again, reaffirm delete for lack of notability. Verifiability does not create notability. (And the "mostly canon" remark sure didn't help. "Mostly canon" means insufficiently encyclopedic.)Doczilla 08:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re:Cannon - Whether or not something is Star Trek Canon is an issue for Paramount Pictures. Canonality (?) is a requirement for the Memory Alpha Wiki...I see no evidence that non-canon sources are not WP:V sources for Wikipedia purposes. Shaundakulbara 16:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rework - I think the character is notable, if only for being Khan's chief henchman. The article, OTOH, reads like a loosely-tied together collection of trivia. -- StAkAr Karnak 13:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability not clearly established. We're an encyclopedia, not Memory Alpha. WMMartin 16:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• readers of this AFD may be interested to note that in Cox's novels, the "Space Seed" character is the father of the character in The Wrath of Khan. The article makes no mention of this, and has an overlong in-universe biography that joins up these two characters without even a mention of the issue that some sources claim they are two different characters. (what sources claim that they are one and the same, anyone?). Morwen - Talk 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Okuda in the text commentary on the DVD version of TWOK Extended Director's Cut specifically states that the Space Seed character and the movie character are the same person and the misspelling is a production error. In the movie, Khan also says These people have sworn to live and die at my command two-hundred years before you were born implying that his henchmen were with him on Earth in the 1990's. The timeline is also established in the movie that the crew of the Botany Bay were stranded on Ceti Alpha V for 15 years, making Joachim an offspring of the crew very unlikely.TenaciousT 17:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Michael Okuda's expanation is mentioned and cited in the article. They definately are the same character - that's canon. Cox's books apparently suck (tons of bad reviews on Amazon.com, and no, suckiness does not affect notability!). The article can definately mention that Cox makes Joachim Khan's dad if we can reference that (I don't have the novel). The fact that this character was given a different relationship to Khan in some non-canon sources seems like the sort of thing the article would be useful for explaining. I am cutting the summary waaaaaay back as it currently obscures Joachim's major part in the plot of Star Trek II, i.e. Joachim's refusal to cooperate with Khan's megalomania results in Kirk's victory. Shaundakulbara 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent point. I have the Cox books here and I'm planning on going through them today. I also watched the TWOK bonus features off the DVD last night and there a lot more references I can cite from my notes. I'm looking at the article from a different angle; what would have changed if Joachim has not been in the movie?TenaciousT 18:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As Khan's "Spock", Joachim's character seem to have several functions. He shows the loyalty of Khan's followers but also demonstrates that this loyalty is a sensible one and doesn't extend to blind obedience. Joachim's ability to pilot the Reliant with no training enables them to escape exile. Joachim's later refusal to pilot the Reliant leads to Kirks victory. He's not so minor a character that he's not Wik-worthy. I've chopped down the article into about 1/3rd of its original length by removing unneeded summary. What's left is still an awful lot to merge. I know this guy is notable enough because my bf isn't a huge Trek fan but when I asked him if he knew who Joachim is in Star Trek he said "is that Khan's henchdude?" (that is an anecdote, I am NOT basing my claims of notability on that! Jeepers.) Shaundakulbara 18:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, excellent work. You really cleaned it up.TenaciousT 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaundakulbara, I caught myself up on the Cox books. Where do you think I should put this stuff? I can put it under "Description" or create a new section called "Non-canon."TenaciousT 22:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There may be misconception that minor characters should NEVER have their own articles. Note the following from Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): "Noonien Soong is a minor—but still notable—character in Star Trek: The Next Generation, who has sufficient depth to sustain an independent article." Shaundakulbara 18:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re: Fancruft, as it says at Wikipedia:Fancruft, "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil and an assumption of bad faith...As with most of the issues of notability in Wikipedia, there is no firm policy on the inclusion of obscure branches of popular culture subjects...It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Shaundakulbara 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can also be used with reference to articles that are unencyclopedic and the result of an overly enthusiastic fan seeding WP with nn articles about their favourite subject, as in this case. Delete Eusebeus 23:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eusebeus, your message seems a deliberately impolite response to citation of guidelines about civility and good faith. People have spent time and effort on this article and are making intelligent arguments to keep it. Right or wrong, these editors deserve the same respect as any others. Thank you. --House of Scandal 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm probably biased, as a viewer of The Phoenix (apparently one of very few), but I think some deleters have oversold how "extremely minor" Joachim is. He is, as Shaunda has said, "Khan's Spock," with lines and screentime. Everyone who saw the movie remembers his death scene - even some of the people commenting on how NN he is have quoted from it! I also agree that the excessive rambling of the original article about the overall plot rather than Joachim's specific role, had the ironic effect of diluting his claim to notability by making him seem like a bystander carried along by general events. The reworked article is much better, and allows me to upgrade from the weak keep I originally planned to cast. --Groggy Dice T | C 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The comment immediately above this mirrors my own thoughts. Many of the Delete opinions were given when the article was in poor shape. Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) gives an example of a "minor—but still notable—character in Star Trek...who has sufficient depth to sustain an independent article." This falls in exactly the same category and few with knowledge of the corpus of the Star Trek universe would make a contrary appraisal. Many of the early arguements against the article (crystal ballism, just a summary, etc.) no longer apply. As the good parts of this article have been very much expanded and the overly-long summary is reduced into an excellent new form, perhaps it is appropriate to give this a fresh debate? --House of Scandal 04:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment although I'll stick with my weak delete for now, I think the only barrier to keeping the article is the lack of information from the novels. If that part can be expanded to show him playing a major role, then it should survive. This article therefore needs more time. And, btw, does canonicity really matter here? Totnesmartin 10:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Canonicity is a non-issue here, it's an issue only over at Memory Alpha as they have a special relationship with Paramount Pictures. Shaundakulbara 19:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless properly sourced using reliable publications. Addhoc 15:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Still going with Delete even after the rewrites. The character is simply not significant enough under WP:FICT to warrant a separate article. Find an appropriate list of ST characters article and put him there but delete this. Otto4711 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Question - Has anyone seen a response to questions of notability, e.g. cited secondary source that explains how film or franchise would be significantly different without this character? --EEMeltonIV 18:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article details how Joachim's skill enables the augments to hijack the Reliant and how the loss of Joachim's loyalty at a critical juncture leads to Khan's defeat. Shaundakulbara 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Has anyone seen a response to questions of notability, e.g. cited secondary source that explains how film or franchise would be significantly different without this character?" - emphasis added. --EEMeltonIV 21:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a silly request. We don't need an essay about how The Wizard of Oz would be different without the Tin Woodman to know he is part of the story. If someone were to write such as essay about Joachim they would say his death was Khan's motive for detonating the Genesis Device, an act of murder/suicide which killed both Khan and Spock. Shaundakulbara 12:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep — I'm vehemently purist in most cases relating to the canon but this article is good enough in my opinion to be kept. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The character seems notable for Wikipedia. If necessary, maybe the sources could be improved to help keep this article in Wikipedia. Acalamari 19:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If one-off characters like Harry Mudd warrant a wiki article, than a character that has appeared in an original series episode, a film, and a book is fitting for an article as well. Seems to be a decent amount of info on the page, written well. No reason to delete. Tarc 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mudd, however, had two episodes center on him; the same cannot be said of the subject of the article up for deletion. --EEMeltonIV 20:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Eston, my curiosity in your recent activities has brought me to this article that you have marked for deletion. I must say, I’m not surprised that you’ve managed to bring your elitist tendencies to web 2.0. Like the way you instruct your students, if they don’t fit your mold you toss them away with the trash. Even a well written article like this one isn’t worthy in your book. What will it take for you to learn that by telling people that their work isn’t worth publication you’re pushing potential Wikipedians to the fringes. Your personal page marks how many times you’ve been vandalized, I wish there was a way to track how many people you’ve single handedly turned into vandals. This is a Strong Keep and I urge my fellow alumni to vote the same. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.PiKA4EvA 23:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re Mudd. How is that even a logical argument? Two episodes isn't comparable to one episode and one motion picture? Tarc 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, per TenaciousT's comment to nom, and because the article appears to be a casebook example of WP:OR in action. "Like Khan, Johachim was very intelligent, but lacked experience operating a starship. Presumably, Joachim's failure to find the override caused the Reliant to be severely damaged, and ultimately, cost him his life." That kind of statement can't be derived from a primary source. What's left after the original research goes is WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE plot summary material, so there's no "here" here to fix. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: Your comment is actually based on the "old" article, because it was briefly reverted to its old state as part of a botched attempt at fixing a move debacle. I've just changed it back to the "new" version, that cleans up the WP:OR. --Groggy Dice T | C 21:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative. Thanks for pointing that out to me. This article seems like a perfectly good example of how to write about fictional characters. Keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Re: off-screen- I have added specifics about Joachim's appearance in the novels and went into more detail about how he was represented in 2 different Star Trek games. The novels and the games now have their own headings at the end where they seem to belong. BTW, before someone claims otherwise, the fact that Joachim is treated differently in Cox's novels does not decrease his notability, it increases the amount of encyclopedic information to present and explain. Shaundakulbara 12:46, 9 February 2007 (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.