This is a page to discuss the suggestion to delete "John Harrison".

  • If you are suggesting a page for deletion, add your initial rationale to the section "Deletion rationale".
  • If you want to discuss this suggestion, add comments to the section "Discussion".
  • If a consensus has been reached, an administrator 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 Edit

This article is premature, as the film has not been released yet and per the spoiler policy we don't create in-universe articles until the film is officially released. This first nine minutes that has been released may yet be changed. 31dot (talk) 02:43, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

It has also been suggested that the name of this character is a pseudonym to hide who it actually is, as there to this point has not been a "John Harrison" in canon, and I believe Abrams has said the villain was from canon, did he not? 31dot (talk) 03:24, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, has a poll right now asking people who they think the character is, and this name isn't on the list. 31dot (talk) 10:28, December 14, 2012 (UTC)


Discussion Edit

  • According to Paramount it's the characters real name => [1] --Hiro 12:22, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. We literally know nothing about the character. Not his race, not his motives, we don't even know if he actually is a Starfleet officer or if he's just disguised as one. The page for Nero and other characters introduced in Star Trek were not created until after the film was released. I suggest we do the same for characters from Star Trek Into Darkness. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 10:07, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
(to the anon user)Of course Paramount would say that, the James Bond people (and the actress herself) kept insisting one actress was not the character she actually was until the movie came out.
(to William5000) That, as Sulfur said, is precisely why we shouldn't have an article yet, among other reasons. We don't know anything about this character yet to put in an article.31dot (talk) 10:30, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Add my delete to the pages Sulfur suggested. 31dot (talk) 10:32, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete pages, replace with redirects to the film article for now, restore history if and when it's needed (read:forgotten about and restored the first time one of these is merged with another page). - Archduk3 18:34, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
This sounds good to me. I'll put my vote here. StarSickTOG (talk) 05:10, December 12, 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Renegade54 (talk) 19:30, December 11, 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. It is for the pure curiosity of the wiki goer only and shall be changed post movie debute. ZackVad (talk) 05:26, December 13, 2012 (UTC)ZackVad
Regarding Carol Marcus - Paramount's UK twitter account confirmed the character today. [2] Don't know if that makes a difference. - Aatrek 10:10, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make a difference as we only have an article when the film comes out. It could (and should) be mentioned in the article about the film, though. 31dot (talk) 10:16, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Is there a way to put like a site-wide banner up or something regarding STID info/images? Might be easier than having to follow up on everything (like the newly-posted File:Nibiru.jpg, for which I've already fixed the tags, etc.) after the fact, or pre-protecting pages before they're created. - Aatrek 13:57, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Sadly, we tried that last time. It really seemed to have no effect at all. People don't read what they don't want to see. -- sulfur (talk) 14:06, December 17, 2012 (UTC)
Concerning other potential articles and images, it might be sensible to discuss/allow speedy deletion, though. If the reason for not having those articles is (among other reasons) the avoidance of spoilers, it's strange to have a very public discussion each time. ;) -- Cid Highwind (talk) 17:13, December 17, 2012 (UTC)

Admin resolution Edit

  • All three pages deleted as per policy. Temporary protection has been put on them that will automatically expire on May 17, 2013. This can be adjusted as (and if) required. -- sulfur (talk) 14:10, December 17, 2012 (UTC)