Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacen Solo


 * 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. Secret account 21:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacen Solo

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No real-world notability has been established since the article's creation in January 2003. The article is essentially another fictional biographical account compiled from plot summaries. Also, there is a far more appropriately placed well-written and in-depth article on Wookieepedia. User:Dorftrottel 10:13, January 22, 2008 10:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep but stubify - Star Wars fans' voting for his "Darth" name I think is sufficient for inclusion...somewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - even nugget of info about "Darth ___" vote is insufficient to sustain article. Would be appropriate to include in List of... --EEMIV (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:FICT for lack of real world WP:RS comment. Beyond the Darth Who? contest mentioned above, my searches found one critic's opinion about the Darth Caedus story line. Everything else comes from the plot. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - There must be a character list he could be merged to, or at least have these one-two facts put on that list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, major character in best-selling series of novels and comics. I suspect sources exist but are hard to find due to prevalence of fan sites.  Barring keep, should at least be merged into List of minor Star Wars characters rather than deleted outright.  Same as with Jaina Solo.  Powers T 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See V: "If no reliable, third-party sources  can be found  for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Therefore, your argument effectively boils down to a delete. User:Dorftrottel 20:14, January 23, 2008
 * Delete, no reliable sources or evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Commment On further thought, the best option might be to merge Jacen, Jaina and Anakin Solo into the single article Solo family, with only a limited amount of information on each. I possibly should have proposed that instead; but I certainly don't think we need an extensive article on each of them. Terraxos (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per LtPowers. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a majority vote. Also, although LtPowers doesn't accept this yet, his argument is one for deletion. User:Dorftrottel 00:29, January 23, 2008
 * Nonsense. I said they're hard to find, not impossible.  I frankly don't have time to sort through search results looking for needles in haystacks every time an AfD pops up to set a 7-day deadline on finding sources.  Main characters of best-selling novel series are presumptively notable; absence of sources is cause for improvement, not deletion.  Powers T 12:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they're not presumptively notable. If a character is going to have an article that stands alone from source material, an assertion of that character's separate notability -- not inherited from notable source material -- needs to articulated and substantiated. --EEMIV (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, LtPowers. You're voting keep in what ostensibly is a discussion, and your "rationale" is actually an argument for deletion. Please come up with any reliable, third-party source to verify notability, or alternatively please accept that this article should not exist on Wikipedia. It's as easy as that. User:Dorftrottel 13:25, January 24, 2008
 * If the situation was as clear-cut as you insist, we wouldn't need AfD discussions, would we? I never used the word "vote", and I'm not the one trying to strongarm my position in lieu of actual discussion.  What I'm saying is that due to the character's position as a major character in a best-selling series of novels, notability can and should be presumed while sources are found -- a task made difficult by a preponderance of non-reliable sources referring to the character.  How you see that to be an argument for deletion is baffling.  Powers T 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For all relevant purposes, non-existent and untraceable sources have exactly the same value here: none. If you actually did your best looking for reliable third-party sources, and if that search didn't yield any results, the logical consequence should be for you to assume that those sources do not exist. Either that, or you should keep looking if you would like this article to be kept. But coming here and throwing in a barring keep, speculating on the existence of good sources, is a complete non-sequitur. User:Dorftrottel 14:46, January 24, 2008
 * Unfortunately, I have not done my "best looking", nor do I have the time to keep looking. Thus my argument that the article (and Jaina Solo) should be kept -- under a quite-reasonable presumption of notability for major characters in best-selling series of novels -- while further searching goes on.  You're free to disagree that such presumption is reasonable, or that the article should be kept while sources are found (that's why we have these discussions, after all), but views with which you're disagreeing are not inherently unsupportable.  Powers T 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major character in a notable series RogueNinja talk  00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If the character were notable, reliable third-party sources shouldn't be hard to find. User:Dorftrottel 00:29, January 23, 2008
 * That doesn't necessarily follow. As I noted above, sources are hard to find due to a large amount of fan-generated material cluttering the results.  Powers T 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that reliable sources might exist, but they can't be found? User:Dorftrottel 14:55, January 23, 2008
 * No, I'm saying they're hard to find. I'm tiring of my words being twisted to sound less reasonable than I intend.  Powers T 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "I suspect sources exist but are hard to find due to prevalence of fan sites." — Those are your words. You "suspect". In other words: You are speculating that such sources exist, but you do not know. There's no need to twist your logic any further. User:Dorftrottel 14:46, January 24, 2008
 * I was referring to your "can't be found" clause. Don't you get tired of these semantic games?  Powers T 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thanks for asking, but I can't seem to afford it since you seem not to get tired of not seeing the essential flaw in your reasoning. User:Dorftrottel 07:36, January 25, 2008
 * I see the flaw in what you think my reasoning is. Does that count?  Powers T 19:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, more or less. If you can accept that there is no significant difference between your reasoning and what I think your reasoning is, you're almost there. User:Dorftrottel 03:10, January 26, 2008
 * Material added/restored to the project needs to be substantiated by verifiable sources; the burden is on editors who want to add/restore material to provide that verifiability. The editors of this article haven't -- whether that's because the sources don't exist or are just hard to find doesn't particularly matter. They're not there, the article's content is unreferenced, and needs to the axed/trimmed to what can be substantiated. --EEMIV (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, and so does policy. See V. That section also unambiguously states: "If no reliable, third-party sources  can be found  for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." User:Dorftrottel 19:04, January 23, 2008
 * FWIW, I could agree to a stubbifying and/or merging approach, with the important qualification that each and all unverifiable material must be removed. User:Dorftrottel 14:58, January 23, 2008
 * Keep This is actually just the same as what the nom says just above, because the fictional work itself is an accepted source for the details, and therefore everything here should be verifiable. Any general conclusions can come from the many works about the overall subject that will discuss the connections. major continuing characters in major series are best handled by separate articles. DGG (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that there should be at least some real-world context, not simply a plot summary of the character's appearances written up like a biography. The plot details are of course easily verifiable, but primary sources and in-universe/plot information alone are not sufficient. If no sources can be found to incorporate and verify any real-world information, then the article should not exist. In that case, I would still strongly argue deletion, or at least merging into a list of characters, or into Solo family. User:Dorftrottel 09:59, January 25, 2008
 * are you saying keep then, and propose to then discuss a merge on the talk page.? DGG (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As of right now, I don't see any real-world information as verifiable through reliable sources, so I'm still leaning to delete. User:Dorftrottel 03:10, January 26, 2008
 * The only half-way reliable news mention I could find is here. I doubt any serious real-world content can be built on that, and I really really believe we should not have articles that are pure plot summaries based on only primary sources. User:Dorftrottel 09:25, January 26, 2008

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2006/10/16/star_wars_readers_to_name_next_sith_lord/7402/


 * Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not supposed to be a majority vote. User:Dorftrottel 09:25, January 26, 2008
 * I'm glad when people agree with me, but they can help even more by adding to it. I doubt I have exhausted the possible keep arguments. I think, though, there no need to comment adversely. Admins know by and large how to close AfDs.DGG (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:V. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what in this article is not verifiable? Powers T 03:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Plot summary is verifiable -- but plot summary is insufficient to sustain an article. Citing WP:V may even be jumping the gun, since there is not real-world, third-party, out-of-universe information that needs verifying -- because this topic is not notable enough to warrant such attention. --EEMIV (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge into a relevant character list. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 23:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Major character in a number of books, but less on-line than I'd have expected. I know next to nothing about this, but added a few references at the end of the article.  There must be a "star wars reviewed" book out there that discusses him, but until someone finds it, I'm on the weak keep side.   Hobit (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. What exactly speaks against deleting the article for now? A more comprehensive version of the "material" is included in the Wookieepedia article, and there's no prejudice against recreating the article here iff reliable, third-party sources can finally be found, which may be real soon now. User:Dorftrottel 12:29, January 29, 2008
 * Keep. Article asserts notability ("a major character in several Star Wars novels" and "eldest son of Han Solo and Leia Organa Solo"--two of fiction's most well-known characters) and provides evidence as well that should be converted to inline citations.  I'll see if I can make some additional improvements.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No secondary sources to establish notability per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Extremely detailed and informative article about fictional character from major sci-fi universe. However, this person is never mentioned in the mainstream media because he doesn't actually exist. Therefore, all traces must be erased from Wikipedia, before we run out of space. 70.89.1.145 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Published information about this character can be found, eg from this Star Wars Encyclopedia that has information on Star Wars characters. Bláthnaid  20:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Star Wars Encyclopedia is has an in-universe perspective; it does not provide the real-world commentary and information required for a Wikipedia article. --EEMIV (talk) 20:50, 29 January 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.