Memory Beta:Pages for deletion/Henry Janeway

This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "Henry Janeway".

• If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
• To vote simly add "Delete", "Keep", "Neutral".
• If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
• If a consensus has been reached, an admin will explain the final decision in the section "Admin resolution".

In all cases, please make sure to read and understand the deletion policy before editing this page.

Deletion rationale

Shannon O'Donnel has been seen and referenced in several novels and short stories, but AFAIK, Henry Janeway hasn't been seen or referenced outside of 11:59. Has he been seen in a non-canon story? If not, then we reallly don't an article on him. --TimPendragon 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Votes

• Delete --TimPendragon 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--Emperorkalan 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--Seventy 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep--8of5 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

He's an established character. Minor, and a longshot for reuse, but a character nontheless. Our scope is "canon plus licensed", not just "licensed" (even if we leave most of the canon heavy lifting to MA). We have plenty of articles of more questionable relevance than this one.--Emperorkalan 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Tim's point that it would be much nicer to have people contributing novel information rather than rewritten M-A articles, that's not reason enough to delete this now that it's here.--Seventy 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In general, I'm against putting canon-only articles up here before there's any non-canon info to go along with it. Likewise, all the novel/episode/comic pages that are merely blank templates. If they were still redlinked, it'd be easier to see what's needed, on Wanted Pages. --TimPendragon 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"In general, I'm against putting canon-only articles up here before there's any non-canon info to go along with it." So am I, but that ship sailed long ago. --Seventy 02:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. There's probably a thousand articles (or more) that, in all honestly, should still be redlinked. --TimPendragon 02:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As an ancestor of a main character I'd be inclined to keep this, but agree wit wasn't necessary to be made in the first place. -- 8of5 03:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is probably not the place to do this, and perhaps I sound upset or wounded (but bare with me I've got the dreaded flu. But as a contributor for many of the blank comic articles and even some rewritten MA articles over the many months, I feel I must bring up some points. In August 2006, I added the bulk of the Gold Key and DC TOS comic releases, but at the time nobody mentioned that I shouldn't create these articles if all I was going to do was added a template. There were no questions or queries about the additions so I carried on happilly.

Now in those days there was little or no administrator coverage so we had to look out for each other, and moderate each others articles. Again no-one questioned the addition of numerous rewritten Memory Alpha articles, and there wasn't even any policies in those days, just a single line that "Information from canon sources should be used in context", which was a rule that was broken long before I became a contributor here. I think it is excellent that the wiki has improved immensely in the last few months, but please don't blame contributors for mistakes from the past, when they weren't made aware they were making mistakes. --The Doctor 03:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's slamming any contributors here, Doc. Simply making an observation that, as of now, it is harder than it should be to tell which articles are still needed. --TimPendragon 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I realise that, and like I say you must excuse my flu-filled paranoia, I apologise. But I just wanted to get across how the situation occured and the climate that was present on the wiki at the time. While I do understand your observations, although I know agree that redlinks are preferred, all of our stub articles need expanding or need working on, as well as the redlinks. --The Doctor 04:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with creating blank pages for comics, sure it would be better they were full but I'd rather have a page for every source with minimum info on than no page at all. -- 8of5 03:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

see response at Forum:"Blank" articles--TimPendragon 04:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin resolution

Kept per vote. --The Doctor 12:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)