Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle droid


 * 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   no consensus to delete, default to keep. Even after numerous weak "keep" opinions are discounted (boilerplate, "the sources are out there", "it's important" etc.), a majority of participants is convinced that the sources provided principally by Hobit are sufficient to confer notability on this topic.  Sandstein  16:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle droid

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of various plot points from the the Star Wars media articles plot sections, and is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See also
 * Articles for deletion/Protocol droid


 * Keep and cleanup- These were major items from the prequel trilogy. Real world information should be out there to make a valid out of universe article. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Totally in-universe. Full of original research. Edison (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments Wasn't the Battle droid action figure the first prequel-related toy released in stores? That's one bit of real world significance (if I'm remembering things correctly). But even if this topic can't support its own article, I'm sure some of this information could be merged somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 05:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah here's a source: . I think there was a full article about the action figure in ToyFare, but that won't be available online (and probably not even in any libraries). Zagalejo^^^ 19:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep sigh....
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Q4lRAAAAMAAJ&q=%22Battle+droid&dq=%22Battle+droid&ei=m2CgSIf0BtC4iQGK48H7BA&pgis=1 (out of universe stuff about the CGI in the top-tier graphics conference).
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=Ra0d2dZDJpoC&pg=PA67&dq=%22Battle+droid&ei=22CgSPvOD46UiAHU7PD7BA&sig=ACfU3U0sndeSViV7wyemybt9nshbp-cOIQ#PPA67,M1 (seems to be secondary, independent, etc.)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=z9CjkiB8BTAC&pg=PA20&dq=%22Battle+droid&lr=&ei=GGGgSM64F5yMjAGHlaX6BA&sig=ACfU3U2Hf7EuFIIrAS6epSIOr4jH4PSTiQ (secondary, independent, ok source for this topic)
 * Plus the 300,000+ ghits for this phrase, plus all the news articles. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So, in total, you have demonstrated an article where someone says you can make a battle droid at home...and also posted that it has a bunch of google hits...that is not notability, that does not establish this should have a whole article dedicated to it. Either find information that indicates real notability, or stop wasting everyones time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One is an article in SIGGRAPH, one is a book about building models, one is book about Star Wars LEGOs. There are also non-independent (but secondary) sources that detail battle droids.  here for example... Hobit (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Entirely in-universe detail and plot information. Sources provided by Hobit above are not enough to convince me that this droids specifically have received substantial coverage. It's likely that any reliable independent sources that are not game guides or plot regurgitation and happen to contain the string "battle droid" are about the movies, franchise on the whole, etc and contain only passing mention of the droids themselves. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit unclear on how these are passing mentions or plot regurgitation. The three above are about A) The CGI for battle droids (published as part of the most significant graphics conference in the world) B) a section of a book the covers how to make a model of a battledroid (and there are _plenty_ of similar book references, mainly to Lego/mindstorms, but this one is not that), and C) a walk thru of a game.  C) is admittedly weak, but none of them are "plot regurgitation" and A and B certainly aren't passing mentions.  Could you clarify your objections? Hobit (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that your references were those things, but rather that any sources which aren't those things likely contain only passing mention in the context of a larger work about the movies. Mainly, I wanted to point out, for example, that the string "battle droids" probably appears in numerous reliable, independent movie reviews, yet those reviews clearly provide no basis for an article on battle droids. On your sources, (A) is not a terrible reference, but I am assuming the majority of the work is about the special effects in the movies on the whole and that the droids themselves get a paragraph or so. Perhaps more than merely passing reference, but not enough to indicate this topic is notable and not enough to justify an entire article. It appears to be a more appropriate used on the articles for the movies themselves. (B) doesn't really contain anything useful and basically only shows that somebody likes to build models of Star Wars stuff. I don't see what content that could provide to an encyclopedia. (C) is a game guide, so it clearly doesn't focus on the droids themselves. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the information is usable to build up an article with, the information given is trivial and in too small amounts to justify a whole article on the topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question at hand is if the topic meets WP:N. I think the above sources (and there are plenty more) do so.  Non-independent and even primary sources can easily be used to build an article (and in fact, have been).  Not a perfect article by any means, but between the various Star Wars encyclopedias and the books/movies/games/mindstorms I think there is plenty to write about. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for maintaining a courteous, non-condescending tone. My search for good sources came up dry, and I still disagree with you about the sources you've provided and I'm assuming you've presented the best of your searches, so I am forced to conclude that notability has not been established. Further, we're 3 days into the AFD and the article is still entirely in-universe details, fictional design specifications for the droids, and plot summary, clearly failing WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Frankly, it looks like it's been lifted right off Wookieepedia. Naturally, I don't expect changes to happen immediately, but if there is such an abundance of reliable secondary sources then adding real-world information of some sort should be a breeze. As it stands, the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia and it should be deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The results of a Google books search demonstrates numerous out of universe reliable results, which demonstrates notability and real-world information, which is why the article is appropriate for Wikipedia and must be kept. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hobit and Le Grand Roi.-- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Zagalejo and Hobit do a good job of finding independant sourcing. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closer - Please remember to disregard keep votes that have nothing to do with policy, and say that reliable sources have been established when they have not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing is battle droids are notable. See Google news and google books and even google images, i.e. multiple appeareances in major works of fiction (films, comics, games, etc.) and even made into toys.  All of these things have reviews without of universe information and not all fictional robots articles can make such claims.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (edit conflict) and I can't imagine that a closer would consider that when an article is objected to as unsourced notability, and sources are presented to show it, that carping objects to the sources as "too small amounts" and the like are valid policy-based objections. IDONTTHINKITSDIMPORTANT is not the same as NOT NOTABLE. It is policy that things need to be notable. It is not policy, but judgement, exactly how notable they must be, and it goes by consensus, not by reminders to the closing admin. DGG (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per hobit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep It's cruft, and notable and independently sourced as well. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 22:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Hobit, Le Grand Roi and DGG. Banj e  b oi   00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. The popularity of a battle droid as a commercial product does not itself establish notability. Hobit gave three reliable sources: (1) a paper presented by the people who made money programming the cgi (and hope to do more), (2) someone who hopes to make money off of those who can't assemble a model without fancy pictures, and (3) a book for sale to someone too lazy to figure out the video game on their own. Of these, only the first begins to establish notability, but that is not significant coverage. You get lots and lots of google hits, but most of them are toys for sale. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It does when it appears in multiple major works of fiction, i.e. films, toys, games, comics, etc., i.e. a notable amount of works of fiction. That is indeed significant coverage by any reasonable standard.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources exist. I added a trivial but interesting reference.  Lots more are out there, maybe I'll add some. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Stubify - The article is currently pure plot. There might be a notable subject here, but it drowns. Taemyr (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sourcing update: I began a section about the real-world out of universe models covered in a book. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The fact that the nominator has taken it upon himself to declare every source posted here as invalid and even went so far as to advise the closer to ignore people who vote "keep" without the nominator's personal approval is disturbing to say the least, especially considering the number of Star Wars articles he has nominated for deletion in the past few days. I'm not suggesting bad faith, but starting a number of AfDs on a specific group of articles and then demonstrating poor behavior in those AfDs is generally a good way to ensure you're not taken seriously. Gelmax (talk) 18:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it has not. One reliable source about comparing the droid army of Star Wars to potential work by the US military is one sentence of reliable sources, not nearly enough for a whole article, and will fit nicely in the Attack of the Clones article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems like a call for merging and redirecting without deletion then. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging a whole sentence and deleting massive amounts of prose is not a merger, it is deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merging anything precludes deletion per the GFDL. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the other keeps above. How can there not be an article on battle droids? Stijndon (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - anyone doing CS in college? SIGGRAPH had a presentation that talks about the creation of battle droids.  Pay only. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I cited it above (and teach CS in college :-)Hobit (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, really! Which school/classes? I used to be a PhD candidate at Oregon State University in Machine Learning. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very important in the Star Wars franchise, and important to those learning about it. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. My ability to assume good faith is being stretched to its limits when several clearly independent and non-trivial sources are presented to establish notability, and are still being dismissed as not demonstrating "real notability" (whatever that is). How much more "real-world" can you get when sources talk about the computer graphics involved, and building Lego models, and battle droid toys? What kind of things that are not being presented here are you expecting to see to establish this "real notability"? DHowell (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A bunch more in fact. The issue that we seem to have a miscommunication on is that there needs to be a lot of notable material to sustain an article. If you find two sources, and say "wow, two sentences worth of material! lets merge it to X article!", that would make sense, but to say "wow, a sentence of real material! keep this massive plot repetition with a sentence of actual notable stuff!" doesn't sound nearly so good. If you find a ton of notable stuff, vote keep. If you find a few sentences/ a paragraphs worth total, then don't vote keep, vote merge, otherwise people will just punch holes in the references, and make the obvious point that a paragraph is not nearly enough to sustain a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, excessively in-universe and cited to a very few sources. More appropriate to a dedicated wiki like Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are both reasons for rescue, not deletion. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.