Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights (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 delete. Core desat 08:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The previous AfD, Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Jedi knights, was closed early as premature following this previous debate. Since our general precedent is that a no consensus close can be relisted at any time, consensus at deletion review was to relist. This is a neutral, procedural nomination. I will take the liberty of copying the original nomination statement below. Chick Bowen 05:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Original nomination statement: This article is just a giant plot summary (see WP:NOT) with no analysis and nothing to indicate real world notability. It is just info about characters with no real world context at all.   It has been tagged for a while and shows no signs of improvement.  It does not cite reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT and is cannot be cited to meet the criteria of notability established therein (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject).  Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT).  Additionally, I cite precedent from the Articles_for_deletion/List_of_ancient_Jedi AFD. Pilotbob 05:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Even as a group these characters lack notability.  There are no reliable, independent sources listed and no real-wrold context or content given.  Eluchil404 07:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No notability asserted, no 3rd party references, written in-universe, just an excuse to fling a large number of NN characters from various sources together.  Not to mention the number of fair use images...  E LIMINATOR JR  09:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete minor fiction characters with no impact outside of their fanverse. MLA 14:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as fancruft Doc Strange 14:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the Star Wars stuff is highly notable, and these details would be OK at the book pages to which many of them refer. This is a reasonable way to organize the information. JJL 15:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JJL. Rray 16:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, whether or not to include such information in separate articles about notable books is an editorial decision, but independent sourcing does not exist in sufficient quantity focusing on these characters to justify a separate article. The nonfree images also need to go; regardless of the outcome here nonfree images are disallowed in lists. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions.   —Quasirandom 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete They are, as the title states, minor charecters. Just because there is a lot of them does not make them anything more than that. ff m  00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not important enough to be on a main list? Not important enough for WP. Aren't there like a gazillion Jedi Knights from the oodles of other SW things? Yeah. They're not all notable. So delete this awful list. I (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:SAL this list qualifies to have its own page since it is too long to be put onto a parent article without making that article too long. Minor characters deserve mention, and this is a good place to put all of them without each having their own pages. This does not qualify for WP:IINFO since it's not any of the things talked about there, in fact it qualifies for WP:PAPER instead. Fancruft is not a valid argument pe WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because the title states that they are minor does not mean they don't get included in an encyclopedia, Example: Minor presidents of the US would still qualify for mention. Viperix 01:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Define a "minor President of the United States". I (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Millard Fillmore, William Henry Harrison…--Neverpitch 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't consider them minor, and they're all notable in their own right. Thus, the analogy is not germane. I (talk) 01:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I consider them minor, and your saying they're all notable in their own right proves my point. The minor characters from Star Wars are all notable in their own right. Therefore the analogy is poignantly congruent. Why do you say all the presidents are all notable? I can think of at least five that most people don't even know were presidents. Viperix 21:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. They are not each notable in their own right. And every president of the United States is notable. Just becuase the superficial society of today doesn't know they were presidents doesn't make them any less notable. Read the notability criteria. I (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again you miss the point. The point really is not if the minor presidents are minor or not, (which comparing them to less minor presidents proves that they are indeed minor). The point is they ARE minor yet still notable. People not knowing about them does not make them less notable it makes them minor, or less important. Pointing to the notability criteria further proves my point, notability and minority are not the same thing. Viperix 02:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see absolutely nothing to prove they are notable. Show me the signigicant coverage by sources independant of the subject. I (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is, you want a news article for every character on here, well that just isn't going to happen. There cannot be a news article on everything. The Fact is: Star Wars is notable enough to have its minor characters mentioned, but listing them on the main Star wars page would make it extremely long and burdensome. Each minor character could have their own page but listing them all together is the best alternative. Viperix 09:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want coverage for every entry here, otherwise they would have their own article. What I want is proof that minor characters from something other than the movies are notable. I (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable; Wikipedia is not supposed to be a bureaucracy; Wikipedia is not paper; and people not wanting to read this article are usually not forced to read it, the article is found by being linked to in one way or another or by being typed in a URL or search engine. It's not like this article is being being inconvenient or anything. Is it adding extra poundage to a book or something?--Neverpitch 01:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Vote from blocked user struck. - GlassCobra 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Minor characters are rarely appropriate for separate articles, but a combined one can be a sensible way of handling them. Minor characters in a minor just-notable work might not justify an article at all, but this particular series is not of borderline notability.DGG (talk) 02:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While it is certainly true that Star Wars as a whole is of unquestioned notability, many of the characters in this list are from Expanded Universe comics and novels that I would firmly consider minor just-notable works. Eluchil404 23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This was originally a neutral nomination, but having read the article I must now argue for deletion. The argument made above is that this is a reasonable way to organize information that is itself notable.  The problem with that is that the list, because it is entirely written in in-universe style, does not make clear which characters are drawn from notable and which from non-notable works.  I don't think this can be fixed by mere editing, because the concept of the article refers to the Star Wars universe, not to any given works.  List of minor Jedi knights from notable Star Wars-universe works might be OK, though I doubt it would survive AfD, but an inclusive list like this, in my mind, is unsalvageable. Chick Bowen 00:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absolutely no real-world notability; fancruft is the only description.  Written entirely from in-universe point of view, and there really is no real-world content or context, and none can really be added -- there just isn't any. -- Ekjon Lok 18:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Merging a couple dozen non notable minor characters into one page does not make that page notable. This is exactly what Wookipedia is for. --Daniel J. Leivick 20:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I see that this is an encyclopedia. I also see Starwars pages being deleted more and more often.  This page has lots of credibility.  For instance, encyclopedias are meant for gathering random facts into a fashion in which anyone can read.  I can think of many ways in which this article is helpful.  I can also name hundreds (though I know there are thousands) of pages which are stubs, have very little or no information, and the information it is given for is corrupt.  However, this page has lots of information for anyone who wants to know more about Starwars.  Likewise, the apples page has information for people that want to learn more about apples.   Xeysz  ☼  23:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I probably suffer from a case of WP:ILIKEIT, but this seems to be one of the more relatively important Star Wars lists, compared to others. I could be persuaded to support some of the more trivial lists being shaved off, but since Jedi are such a central part of the Star Wars universe, I'd say this should be kept. GlassCobra 14:09, 16 November 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.