Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bespin


 * 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  - Contributors couldn't agree on whether the available sources are independent and/or demonstrate the notability of the subject. Without wishing to prejudice the future of this article, I suggest that the interested editors consider merging this article with Cloud City. (non-admin)  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bespin

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is an in-universe repetition of plot sections of various Star Wars articles. It is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See also
 * Articles for deletion/Kashyyyk
 * Articles for deletion/Kamino (I just contested the prod so imagine AfD will follow)


 * Was unable to find any sources via a googleX search or news archives check. Delete Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not saying its not duplicative or trivial,Pikachu?, but he's got a book source "The Essential guide to Planets and Moons (Star Wars)". And he has got enough info where we shouldn't force a merge with a page like Alderaan. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I didn't address notability, don't know if there is a policy for notability in fiction, but I know what it is and I'm not even that big a nerd. Drunken Pirate (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It says just what the regular notability rules say; there needs to be reliable "out of universe" sources that talk about the subject, and a bunch of them to sustain a whole article. This article has none of that, so merge or delete become the appropriate options. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't get it. The article has 3 book references and 2 web references.  Seems better that your random wiki article.  What am I missing? Drunken Pirate (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The references are listed, but there is no assertion that the contents of those books assert any notability for the article itself, such as how was the world designed, who designed it, what popular reaction was to the planet's look, etc. No notability has really been established by those listed references. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've read the above mentioned book, and it doesn't make the planet in question notable. Sure, it's great for referencing the planet's fictional history, but it doesn't prove notability (parallel: the book The Art of Halo has lots of great details on the Halo video game series, but due to its ties with Microsoft it can't be used to determine any article's notability.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were just one book, okay, but you get multiple books, such as this that also cover the planet. Not all fictional planets receive such coverage and given that we can verify the information in the article, that it does appear in multiple works of fiction, and clearly readers do come here for this information I see no benefit to Wikipedia in not using these sources to reference the article and therefore expand our comprehensive coverage on a notable topic.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete- the references verify the existence of the subject, but don't do anything to assert notability. Reyk  YO!  23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to undeniable notability. Perhaps one of the most recognizable fictional planets, which appears in multiple major works of fiction (movies, games, comics, novels, etc.).  Google News results show discussion in out of universe context.  Not mention lots of Google Books hits and in a variety of contexts.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are confusing notability of Bespin and Cloud City. It seems cloud city was merged into Bespin, but I suggest the opposite: Cloud City can have discussions about design, et al, whereas Bespin cannot - it's just a gas giant! Not to mention its Cloud City which is actually important in the series, not the gas giant around which it is tethered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Even then, that sounds like merge and redirect logic, not redlink thinks article logic. Bespin itself is mentioned in the Google News and Books searches I did.  In any event, aspects of the Star Wars are encyclopedic.  Few works of fiction have had multiple encyclopedias published dedicated to various aspects of them.  What's good enough for multiple paper encyclopedias is surely good enough for the paperless encyclopedia.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * merge with appropriate star wars planets article Umbralcorax (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary and in-universe details of a non-notable fictional location which has not received substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion when the article contains out of universe information cited in sources independent of the subject. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as I am sure there are SW commentaries in sci-fi magazines etc. or could be merged into a list of planets/locales for Star Wars universe list. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- I'm not sure what ad hominem you are referring to, Reyk, but I think you both can safely withdraw from this discussion as having made your points. You don't need to argue until you convince the other - you do not have an audience merely of one. Avruch  T 01:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a key element of a series of major works of fiction, seen and known by many millions of people, etc. Lack of assertion of notability is a CSD criteria, by the way, not a general criteria for deletion at AfD. I don't think the notability of this subject, or of Kashyyyk, is really in question - the solution then is to reference the article, not delete it. Avruch  T 21:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Star Wars is unique in that there are many licensed books dedicated to Star Wars fancruft. To show notability, there should be coverage in secondary sources independent of Lucasfilm or its licensees.  This article has one passing mention in indepedent sources, which doesn't save the rest of this article. --Phirazo 22:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion, especially when the many books both licensed and independent demonstrate notability. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply- Phirazo is arguing that the sources are not independent, because they are licensed by Lucasfilm. I agree. Reyk  YO!  22:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My searches show that there are numerous independent sources as well. Plus, not all fictional planets can claim over 4,000 page views a month.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can find no sources whatsoever with any substance. If you've got something, let's see it. Also your grok page view count thing is an example of WP:ILIKEIT at best. Reyk  YO!  23:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What our editors like matters, because it is why they come here to not only read, but contribute and donate. I see absolutely no valid reason to redlink this article that has existed and been worked on since 2003, that thousands of readers look at monthly, and for which we can verify in numerous reliable sources.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? That was the first thing I dismissed as unreliable sources. A google books search that chucks up a whole bunch of Lucasfilm-licensed Star Wars books does not count as a reliable source. But we've been over this before. Reyk  YO!  23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The results of that search constitute reliable sources and demonstrate notability by any reasonable standard. This information is without any doubt at least as salvageable as Yavin IV.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. I've explained why I think they don't; because merely confirming that a word occurs in a book doesn't prove it's more than a passing mention, or that the book is independent of the subject, or even that the word is used in the context of the article in question. Would you please explain why you think they do constitute reliable sources, rather than doing what you usually do which is merely to keep asserting your position over and over without any backing argument. Reyk  YO!  23:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your explanation is not persuasive, which is why I, the others arguing to keep, the scores who have worked on the article, and the thousands who look at it believe the article is wikipedic. The books, and multiple books at that, provide whole paragraphs on this planet, which appears in multiple media (films, comics, video games, novels, etc.) in one of the most notable fictional franchises perhaps in history.  Plus, it has been discussed in the context of possible cloud cities on Venus (Venus as a comparison with Bespin) as seen here.  Not all fictional planets could lay such a claim.  As such, it is notable.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We can ignore the scores who have worked on the article, and the thousands who look at it, because WP:ILIKEIT is not an argument to keep. I argued that en edit to an article isn't a de facto keep vote here. Now, since you've dodged the question of how reliable your sources are, particularly the independence of those sources, I'll assume you concede the point. If there were "multiple paragraphs" about Bespin in, say, Time Magazine or a major newspaper that would be something else. But it's very easy for a major franchise like Star Wars to produce huge amounts of material, even highly detailed and extensive material, that exists only to make money from obsessive fans. That in no way establishes notability. For example, Star Trek is notable and suitable to be included in an encyclopedia but detailed phaser specifications are not. Harry Potter is encyclopedic, the rules of Quidditch are not. Warhammer 40K is notable, each and every character or unit type is certainly not. Star Wars is definitely a worthy encyclopedia topic. You can even make a strong case for Cloud City, but Bespin's only claim to notability is inherited from these things and that's not good enough. Mentioning the planet in the Cloud City article as the location of the city is sufficient; anything more is excessive and gratuitous. Reyk  YO!  00:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_television_shows_%282nd_nomination%29 was kept. Anyway, we cannot ignore these contributors and readers, because a few deletes in a five day AfD does not somehow trump years of work.  And besides, Editors matter.  I have already answered how reliable they are in that I have no reason to doubt what they claim.  They are published sources; not blogs or forums.  Bespin is sufficiently covered in the sources appropriate to this topic.  Time Magazine would be a good source for say the presidential election, but aspects of works of fiction have different magazines as sources.  A paperless encyclopedia has no legitimate reason why it should not have detailed coverage in sub and spinoff atricles of topics, especially when these articles are easily improved with out of universe context in multiple reliable sources.  These sources do more than just claim inherited notability.  They present independent notability as well as it is a topic covered in multiple works of fiction for which millions of people are familiar.  The source on cloud cities on Venus is more about Bespin than about Star Wars.  We know thousands of readers are interested in it.  We know the information is not fan invented nonsense.  Therefore, we would be doing our readership a disservice by outright deleting it as the only actual reason for doing so is essentially "I don't like it".  Also, how many fictional planets appear in downloadable songs?  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I happen to have high standards, and will argue strongly to have them maintained. Some battles I win and some I lose, but I make no apologies for having an opinion and arguing it in terms of our policies and guidelines. Since my arguments are always more than I just don't like it, you should play the ball and not the man. Reyk  YO!  00:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My primary concern is Wikipedia being the most useful reference guide it can be and for as many people as possible. I trust in the opinions whether stated here or not of those editors who have been working on this article since 2003.  I see no reasons actually consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for deleting this artice.  I see no benefit for the bulk of our community in removing coverage of this verifiable and notable topic.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to Le Grand Roi pointing at my Wikipedia philosophy on my user page rather than my arguments here. But yes, I'm going to shut up now. Reyk  YO!  01:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * merge to an appropriate place I think the ed two above was saying that regardless of the sourcing, the material was intrinsically not notable--why, because he thinks it isnt. The nom brings this here as unsourced, sources are found, another consistent deletor says it doesn't matter,   Well, that's MYOPINIONISBEST: You say the rules of Quiddich are not notable, i say they are, and where are we any further along? Similarly for judgements about what is trivial. I note there's no such rule as NOT#TRIVIAL . Personally I think that bringing these articles for deletion, not merger preserving the contents, is beginning to look like a sustained attack on content that might be rescued, contrary to Deletion policy.  DGG (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Cited sources that are independent from lucasfilm either don't mention bespin or literally mention as "bespin, the planet that cloud city is on" (they then proceed to talk about cloud city, or just move on). Those are trivial mentions.  the article does not cite significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.  It therefore fails the WP:GNG.  As for the current editorial conditions, the article is largely plot summary.  Delete it. Protonk (talk) 07:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insofar as I am able to determine from the article and this discussion, the sources that are independent from Lucas do not discuss this fictional location in a level of detail that would make the planet pass WP:N.  Sandstein   17:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can get that as some of them even compare it to the real world possibility of establishing cloud cities on Venus. Plus, any planet that appears in multiple major works of fiction and that is recognizable to millions of people is notable.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Informative, useful to readers and has sources.  Needs copy-editing and structuring so that the one sentence sections are better merged into the article, but it seems possible and viable to write an article in keeping with our goal and core policies. We're not Brittanica, we're wider in scope, more user friendly and respectful of our readership and their needs. Perhaps we should look to Reith, who coined the idea of a service which would "inform, education and entertain... [and] bring the best of everything to the greatest number of homes", or possibly go further like, Dyke, and "inform, educate, entertain... and connect". For those of you who do not believe we should entertain, please see our Featured article criteria, which asks that our articles engage.  To engage or engross a reader, they must enjoy reading our articles.  To find joy in our articles they must entertain.  Or perhaps our remit might be to "inform, educate, engage and connect, and so bring the best of everything to the greatest number of people." Hiding T 17:48, 10 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.