Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Woman


 * 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 delete. Nandesuka (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dark Woman

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is therefore pure plot repetition and original research gleaned from the media from which the character appears. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reason I redirected earlier: non-notable, no citations to reliable sources. Redirect to Star Wars: Republic might be appropriate, since she appears most frequently there. --EEMIV (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary and in-universe information for a non-notable character which has not received substantial coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in some capacity, i.e. regardless of the Star Wars character, duplicative information should be merged and redirected without deletion anyway, but the phrase "Dark Woman" ia actually the title of various other works of fiction, such as this and this, therefore suggesting at worst redirecting to an article on these works of fiction, being a disambiguation page, etc., i.e. doesn't seem justifiable to outright redlink here. Also, as does pertain to the character, for sourcing, look at page 120 of Power of the Jedi Sourcebook and page 153 of Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Characters for example.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability via reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT for being entirely in-universe plot summary. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT, i.e. use additional sources to expand the out of universe coverage. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a glib response that does nothing to advance the discussion here. "So fix it" (the phrase, not so much the "Be bold" guideline it redirects to) would be appropriate if, say, a body of work were sitting out there within reach to expand the article in an encyclopedic way -- which no one has asserted exist, let alone pointed toward (no, the links to in-universe plot summaries you offered don't provide fodder to offer an appropriate out-of-universe perspective on this topic). --EEMIV (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reply adds nothing to this discussion and does not help to improve the article, especially as I have indicated above suggestions as to how the article can be improved. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And your comments do nothing to further the discussion or do anything constructive. All it's showing is that 1) you have no other argument to show 2) if your reply does not address my comment, which would be nothing other than "here are the sources", then you shouldn't bother to comment. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You have not presented any coherent argument for deletion. You should not ignore sources when they have been presented.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I still marvel at your inability to get the point. You would save much more articles if you simply realized that your nonsense never convinces a closing administrator and you learned what type of coverage provides real notability. The sourcebooks are not independent sources, and they cover nothing but in-universe details; ergo, there is no critical coverage. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet another bizarre response that does not help the discussion, considering that I have probably saved more articles than you have argued to delete by now and that all reasonable administrators are convinced by my reasoning, but this isn't a contest. The coverage here provides notability by any reasonable standard for a paperless encyclopedia.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. There's no notability asserted, and none of your arguments have shown so. Are you even aware of what is in the source books? It discusses nothing but in-universe details in the context of the Star Wars universe. I've read a few of them, and am quite aware of what they contain. That and the source books are not independent sources - they're official fanbooks more or less. Your failure to understand this elementary distinction gets more ridiculous every time it comes up. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your responses keep getting more ridiculous. If you don't want to have a constructive conversation with me, you don't have to reply just to make a point.  There is a such thing as reliable primary sources and sometimes encyclopedic article can be written with those.  Articles like this make for great spinoff and sub-articles, but even if we remove the Star Wars character from the table, other books have even been titled "Dark Woman", which is why I am not seeing a compelling reason to redlink here altogether.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying the sources are not reliable. That is not the point. Notability can only be asserted by sources independent of the topic. The source books are not independent of the topic; therefore, they cannot assert notability. If you want to create a redirect to somewhere else, then go ahead. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't need a deletion discussion to redirect, i.e. unless if the edit history is libelous, if something can be redirected, there's no urgent need to delete the edit history first. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ugh. Just...ugh. This is the most complete failure of notability and WP:WAF I've seen in a very long time. This article completely fails to offer any sort of real-world context for any of this; it doesn't even mention the medium she appears in. If I didn't already know better, I'd have difficulty separating this from a fan character. While a merge is possible I guess, there's nothing here to save; there's plot with no information at all where this plot is coming from. In short, this article would fail WP:V miserably even if WP:N didn't exist or apply. The only way I can imagine giving it any sort of real-world context, given the lack of real-world context in the SW readers' guides (such as the ones Le Roi links above), is to read every single Star Wars story that might be relevant and take notes. That's not a way to write an encyclopedia article, at least not on this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But again, think outside of the box, if the subject is titular of other works of fiction, then it shouldn't be redlinked. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Write that article, then. It can go under this title once we clean this mess up. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a reason for the deletion discussion to prevent any kind of bold revision like that, but I wonder if that should occur on the talk page first. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to write a different article, go and write a different article. It has no relevance to this discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what I am thinking is that Dark Woman should be a disambiguation page and that the current content of this article should be moved to Dark Woman (Star Wars) or something to that effect. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to one of the Star Wars character lists. The references at the bottom were helpful, at least to determine the source of the character. (Until I saw them, I had no idea where she was from, and I'm a Star Wars fan : ) - jc37 02:54, 3 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.