Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamino (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kamino
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. No out of universe notability. JJ98 (Talk) 02:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 04:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - there's obviously plenty of in universe notability - various books, cartoons, comics, etc - but I was also able find quite a few books that aren't part of the Star Wars storyline but instead provide analysis of the various scenes and settings used in the 6 "core" films. This, though DK and LucasArts obviously have a long standing relationship, this, this, this and this. Those are about the universe, rather than in universe, though I'll admit the line is often very thin. At the end of the day, the subject was the setting for a major scene in a notable film - the home planet of the title characters - and several episodes of a notable television series. There are going to be secondary sources that analyse its importance, its place in the films and various other things.
 * I suppose my other query would be about the nomination of this subject/article and not the several others that fall into the same category - Star Wars planets. Is there a particular reason this one fails our guidelines where the others don't? It's not so much an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument as a query of consistency. Should this be bundled with nominations for each of the others? It would seem they would all suffer the same "problems" and be the subject of the same sort of coverage. Stalwart 111  07:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * this is promotional material produced in collaboration with LucasFilms, as you noted.
 * this only mentions Kamino once as part of plot recap.
 * this is an essay on cloning technology in Star Wars that only makes incidental mentions of Kamino as part of plot recap.
 * this only mentions Kamino 3 times as part of plot recap.
 * this could be interesting (can't be accessed on GBooks) but the copyright page that can be previewed on Amazon indicates it's officially-sanctioned promotional material.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, your assessment in each case is pretty close to accurate. Lots and lots of passing mentions and plot summaries and a little bit of analysis. Stalwart 111  23:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  07:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFF is all about how we tackle consistency, so I'm afraid I'm unconvinced by that as an argument. If there are other Star Wars universe planets that fail to meet WP:N, then they should be deleted too. There's plenty of fan cruft on Wikipedia that could be pruned. Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, which is why I specifically didn't include it in my argument but queried the consistency aspect, instead, with the nominator. Stalwart 111  09:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep with no objection to an editorial merge into a List of Star Wars planets, while keeping the specifically notable planets like Tatooine as standalone articles. The material is mostly verifiable to primary sources, with a few other RS mentions, such that while GNG is possibly met, the better option would be to merge similarly-non-notable planets into a list article. Jclemens (talk) 22:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I think a valid argument could be made for deletion, as this article only just borders on the realm of notability. However, I feel that it is only just passable – I would, however, like to see significant improvements to ensure this subject's notability in the future. —  Richard  BB  07:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Star Wars planets. A thorough search for sources did not yield anything more than trivial mentions of the planet as part of plot summary, a description that fits the sources proposed in this discussion.WP:GNG requires "significant coverage from independent sources", so I really can't see how this could even "possibly" pass GNG, and since these sources don't allow to write more that a "Summary-only descriptions of works" per WP:NOTPLOT I see no reason for this article to be kept. As for the other Star Wars planets, except maybe one or two, they probably aren't notable either.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge seems apt in this case. Its not about deleting content, but making sure that the articles have enough information to be useful. Even together as part of other Star Wars planets, this would not be amiss or out of place. It just doesn't meet N or GNG for a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Consensus appears to be that it passes WP:BARE.  Fix or not fix?  There is yet no consensus. Bearian (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: Let us try one more week


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)


 * keep key plot elements or settings in famous series should get separate articles, because--as shown above--there is significant coverage if people look for it properly. The guideline I just said was proposed several years ago as a practical solution, along with everyone the next step down (either minor but non-trivial plot elements or  settings in famous works or major settings or plot elements in notable but not famous works) getting a substantial section in a combined article, those in the next step down (relatively trivial elements the most famous works, minor but non-trivial ones in notable but not famous  works) getting an entry in a list, and everything below that, not covered. The only reason it was not adopted was the intransigence of a few people who didn't want separate articles on any of this.  I would even consider not having separate articles a possibility  as long as there were substantial sections, but experience here continues to show that once the article is merged, the coverage diminishes gradually to a mere name on a list--and then the list article gets challenged. If we had a compromise solution, we could cut down substantially the work at afd, and instead work on writing and sourcing the material &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In this case, you do realize there is absolutely no significant coverage, as shown above ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:29, 15 June 2013 (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.