Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ancient Jedi


 * 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. Jreferee   t / c  13:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

List of ancient Jedi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The list contains biographies of many unsourced star wars characters who at best appeared in the Knights of the Old Republic games and it is written mainly inuniverse, its style nor its content warrants inclusion on Wikipedia Sherzo 18:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Previous AfD discussion: Articles for deletion/List of Ancient Jedi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan Derksen (talk • contribs) 08:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, changed Transwiki and delete as suggested by Dhartung Sherzo 18:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of real-world notability and lack of sources; add an External link at Jedi to List of Jedi at Wookieepedia. --EEMeltonIV 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question - Would it also be appropriate to nominate List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters, List of minor Star Wars Jedi masters, List of minor Star Wars Jedi apprentices, and List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights for deletion? --EEMeltonIV 18:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bundle them in here, but if you feel they violate the policies, go ahead. --UsaSatsui 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done --EEMeltonIV 03:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete this compendium of minor fan trivia. WP:NOT applies, I think, and this is also not in line with the fiction guidelines. Cruftbane 18:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this list, and the info that's worth keeping can be split off onto other lists. --UsaSatsui 18:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * keep shear number of reviews of the games and to a lesser extent the books means that sources will exist.Genisock2 19:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Cruftbane. -- Cjensen 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is exactly the sort of thing that Wookieepedia is for. In-universe perspective, no real-world notability, etc. Note that the article is written up in Cracked magazine's The 8 Most Needlessly Detailed Wikipedia Entries, which has been heavily Digged. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ...so...the article itself is notable, but the subject of the article may not be? That's kind of funny.  --UsaSatsui 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I'm not very happy with deleting material because it makes mocking us easier for those who want to mock us. --Kizor 23:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned the Cracked article only as an FYI, not as a rationale. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I've seen some other people provide counterexamples lately. It was slightly grating, considering that they were people active in defining fiction notability rules. --Kizor 01:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Most needlessly detailed" does not necessarily mean "bad" (I think that royal succession article is a good'un, myself). I just find it interesting that, while List of ancient Jedi could be deleted, we have a source for a potentially notable "List of ancient Jedi Wikipedia article" article, assuming one counts Cracked as a reliable source.  (Did I just encoruage bean-stuffing?)--UsaSatsui 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see you, UsaSatsui, and raise you one WP:ASR. That's been tried before, actually. I think it was a reliable source writing about an article being deleted, being taken as evidence of notability of the topic in the article at AFD. Anyway, my argument has nothing to do with the level of detail per se. I will, howver, change my vote to transwiki as I've confirmed we can do that to most Wikia projects. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Transwiki and delete- Awesome article for Wookipedia, totally inappropriate for this one. Judgesurreal777 21:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete per above reasons. --thither 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very funny  Judgesurreal777!!  But although this is an extensive labor-of-love article, the subject matter in neither notable, nor interesting (to many of us).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptopper (talk • contribs) 01:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ridiculous use of bits, in my opinion. Not notable or necessary.svunt 03:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Deletion doesn't save on bits.Geni 13:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that most of these entries have scanned images indicates that sources do exist for these things, where else would the images be coming from? They just have yet to be put into the article. Same goes for the stylistic concerns. Articles shouldn't be deleted because they're poorly written, poorly written articles are merely works in progress. Bryan Derksen 08:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources, yes, but sources that are verifiable? --UsaSatsui 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strip down to the basics Ditch the infoboxes, the images, and a large amount of text in each section. I have no problem with the "List of yadda yadda" Star Wars articles, but this is extremely crufty; most of the characters are pathetically non-notable. A primary character in KotOR? Yes. Appearing once in a single comic? No. (I even have a copy of the comic that Qual is in; trust me, pathetically minor character). Removing most of the characters would be perfectly acceptable, in my opinion, while trimming down a lot of the remaining text, and then tossing in a link to each character's entry on Wookieepedia so that people who want the insane amounts of detail can get it. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 13:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and remove stick from ass. Sorry to be blunt, but yes, I saw that article too. No, I don't think that we should be deleting things because because some crappy website pulls the "article X is longer that article Y" trick. Artw 03:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing that, and nobody is asking for deletion because of the Cracked article (if anything, the article supports a keep more than it does a delete). --UsaSatsui 06:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be civil, and argue keep or not based on wikipedia policies. Judgesurreal777 15:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep: It seems like people are using the what would Britannica do criteria for an articles notability. This isn't Britannica. The resources are greater, and the number of users is larger. It's factual information that is useful as a reference for people watching the movies or reading the books. Sorry if I offend your sensibilities, but ones snobbish opinion of what is or isn't "encyclopedic" doesn't play a part in it. If you really want to do something useful, break the article into subs for each Jedi, and keep the list linking to the article. As to the "sources, yes, but sources that are verifiable" comment, I'm sure I don't know, understand, or care to know what your bureaucratic definition of verifiable is, but I'm sure you could go and look at the original sources, as in the books, that they were referenced in, and verify the information. —Slipgrid 18:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There's only one definition of verifiable that counts on Wikipedia. Believe me, if we used mine, it'd be a very small encyclopedia.  --UsaSatsui 20:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks. So, a work of fiction is published, and an article is written about one of it's characters.  The work that character was mentioned in is cited as a source.  How is that not verifiable?  In any reasonable definition of the word, being able to go to the direct source of the information and reading it, is verification.  Saying that isn't verifiable, is breaking the English language.
 * Also, why would you want a "very small encyclopedia?" Is less information somehow better? —Slipgrid 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's verifiable. I don't think anyone said it wasn't (I asked if the sources were verifiable, that's slightly different).  There's other issues.  First off, how does one define an "ancient Jedi", and what makes one different from a modern one?  There's still several unsourced entries (not a reason for deletion itself, but still an issue), and there's no out-of-universe context in a lot of entries.  I think the some of the entries can go in other lists, but I don't really think they go well in -this- list.--UsaSatsui 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as clearly failing WP:FICTION and the main notability requirement A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. There are no independant sources, no significant coverage and this article is simply a cherry-picked plot summary which is not what wikipedia is for. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wookiepedia and delete as lacking independant reliable sources. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki then delete. An extreme level of fictional material without real-world information. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 3 October 2007 (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.