Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Sith characters


 * 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 to delete. W.marsh 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of minor Star Wars Sith characters

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Title of this and four other articles (i.e. use of "minor") already suggests non-notability of these character; articles themselves do not make an assertion of notability. These articles are entirely plot summary; what few sources they contain are simply primary sources to which plot summaries are cited. In addition to deletion, suggest adding a link to "List of Jedi" article at Wookieepedia to Jedi article. --EEMeltonIV 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Also nominating for deletion for the same reason: And, as an addendum, another problem with "minor" -- the modifier is non-npov or OR; there are no citations that differentiate or define "minor" from "major." --EEMeltonIV 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, they're not notable enough for their own articles... which is why they are grouped together lists. Combining the Apprentice/Knight/Master pages together would create a prohibitively large article, so keeping them separate is a good idea. "Jedi characters" is more or less a disambiguation page; some of the links to it could probably be redirected elsewhere. These lists are the middle ground between having fancruft articles on Star Wars characters (a bad thing) and having absolutely nothing on them (in my opinion, a moderately bad thing as well, though not as bad as cruft). EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum Please note that I'm suggesting we keep the pages themselves, not 100% of the content; I think a lot of cruft-cutting would do wonders for these articles. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable, awesome article for a fan encyclopedia, totally inappropriate for wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 16:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Very trivial articles. Just because they are in Star Wars, doesn't make them automatically notable for a list article on Wikipedia. RobJ1981 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all The concept of minor characters from Star Wars doesn't have notability, so listing off all the non-notable things within the concept isn't appropriate. There aren't sources for this to talk about more than just the plot. If Wookieepedia already has a list then there's no reason to transwiki anything. Jay32183 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Summarizing Star Wars plot elements on pages devoted to the actual sources themselves is all fine and good, but this is basically just rehash of that and at a detail level that is not necessary in a general encyclopedia. Indrian 00:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We are a specialist encyclopedia. More than one person has told me that they have taken that to mean just things like physics and law, but they've been able to show nothing whatsoever to support that assertion. If WP is suddenly a general encyclopedia, I must ask you to initiate a wholesale destruction of our coverage of the finer points of quantum physics, the specific terminology of aerodynamics, every single one of our lists of asteroids and several thousands or tens of thousands of other things. We must also scale back our surviving articles on science, engineering or biographies to, on average, a third of their current sizes. And "necessary"? None of Wikipedia is "necessary" per se, we can quite painlessly nuke the entire thing and go read other reference works. A delete decision here will cause our coverage of a series of six films, multiple TV series, several dozen books, well over a dozen games, innumerable comics, et cetera, et cetera, spanning three decades, to plummet as every single Sith or Jedi in them, excepting only a part of the none-too-many in the films, is on these lists, and they are the central focus of the whole enchilada.. "Necessary"? Yes. Keep. --Kizor 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, because even minor Star Wars characters have a tendency to appear in multiple books, films, video games, and comics and therefore have potentially widespread notability. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Appearance in a notable work does not meet it/they are themselves notable. And "potentially widespread notability" -- if it's so widespread, where's the assertion of/citation for notability? --EEMeltonIV 21:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all per Le Grand Roi. 96T 10:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of science fiction deletions.--Gavin Collins 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki anything the Wookiees missed and  Weak Delete per WP:NN and lack of WP:RS. Some care should be taken here, given the number of characters covered. MrZaius  talk  21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with MrZaius, Transwiki and Delete Sherzo 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC) That said, the arguments posted in the last edit make a fair bit of sense.

(Re)Jay32183, As an inclusionist here and a historian in real life, I am always disturbed by the mania to get rid of information anywhere. Personally, as a grown-up, I don't give a damn about Jedis, but having stumbled upon this page I gave my opinion and a reason for "keep" which is what is demanded here. There is no good reason to delete it aside from the fact that certain people think it is "non-notable". One person above uses the justification that because the title actually *says* these are "minor characters" that is proof that the article is non-notable. Well, you might want to review Wiki policy on just this subject : Here, let me save you the trouble of clicking on that link:
 * Keep all. A treasure trove of information for the many people who follow this fictional universe.  And is it really necessary to blare the chiding warning, on this and every other Star Wars entry, that the author of pages should make clearer the fictional nature of Star Wars?  Are the readers of Wikipedia 2 years old, so that they constantly have to be reminded that something is make believe? user: D40  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)  — D40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The problem isn't the style of writing, it's the lack of real world information. Sources to fix the problem aren't there. Jay32183 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep! Of course! What is happening to the Wiki? This looks like alot of work went into it and one never knows when one might need to know something about a minor Star Wars character. Now I really don't follow the Star Wars movies, although I've seen them, but I feel better knowing that there is clean well organized information out there if I need it. It isn't as if the article doesn't discuss characters from probably *the* biggest movie franchise in the history of the world. Who even nominated this? I'm sure there are some vanity pages out there that deserve the attention more than this!  S a u d a d e 7  02:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * None of that addresses any of the concerns about the article. Jay32183 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice.

2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be listed with short descriptions in a "List of minor characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."

So it seems that if you delete this article you are actually going against Wiki policy. Also, as a historian, I can tell you that no one knows what information is going to be valuable in the future or to anyone else. It is hubris to think that you have some special dispensation to determine the notability or worth of an article, the subject of which is at least firmly entrenched in one current global mythos. How's that? Did I pass this time? lame.  S a u d a d e 7  10:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That section of the deletion policy quotes an old version of WP:FICT; it is out of date. Saying these things are not notable is not an opinion, Wikipedia has a working definition of notability. Notability is "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject", see WP:N. The article also fails WP:LIST since the concept of "minor characters" does not meet the notability requirement, not are there any sources to bring the article to terms with WP:NOT. If you had actually read the nominator's statement, you'd know that already. Jay32183 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Jay32183 I guess that next you can nominate for deletion the Deletion policy/Minor characters page. After all what does policy matter when you have all the answers? Have fun with you little anti-Star Wars Jihad.  S a u d a d e 7  20:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all with objection to blanket, strong-arming nominations. Bacchiad 02:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All Articles based games should not provide excessive descriptions about fictional characters, locations and events that are in universe, particularly if they are not supported by independent sources. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is not notable.--Gavin Collins 10:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What are you talking about Gavin? This article isn't even about a game? Did you even look at the article before chiming in here? Rray 13:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response I did. Some of the material is drawn from Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic.--Gavin Collins 06:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Response Since only a small amount of the material is drawn from that game, your comment seemed really odd. But you and I have discussed your use of "boilerplate" comments before. This is a good example of why they're a poor way to communicate. Just because a couple of characters in a list come from a game doesn't mean the entire list should be deleted. Rray 22:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Gavin's rationale for deletion is the lack of sources to allow it to comply with the inclusion criteria. It has nothing to do with video games compared to other forms of fictional writing. Jay32183 00:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell from his statement and response, Gavin's rationale for deletion are the criteria for video games. You couldn't have known this, but he's recently made a number of nominations or votes that have been criticized for basically having nothing to do with the articles in question. --Kizor 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all - Per nom. There is no assertion of notability nor is there any real-world connection established, which fails WP:FICT.--Bryson 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and redirect. They don't pass the notability requirements as article topics. I'm always open to recreation if sufficient real-world information can be found (which I doubt exist), so I'd go for redirect instead of straight-out delete. – sgeureka t•c 16:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all, for the sake of the the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. A lot of pages link to these ones one through references to the characters listed, and if you now go and delete these articles, all you'll end up with is a lot of red links that people will start using either to recreate the same pages again (in which case we'll be back where we started, but with poorer-quality articles) or one new page for each character (the avoidance of which was presumably why these lists came into being in the first place). If you want to quote policy at us in saying that these articles will never be notable and must always be deleted, well, first of all if you really want to create that much work for future editors and admins then I suppose that's your lookout (I on the other hand would prefer to take whatever action lessens the amount of unnecessary work other people have to go through), but secondly it is actually rather useful for Wikipedia to contain at least some information about these characters, so that the casual reader can get the kind of background information they might want when reading the pages that link to them - you know, using Wikipedia exactly as it was intended to be used. Lordrosemount 00:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The drudgery of clearing out redlinks is a great task for AWB. More appropriately, though, redlinks created by characters' names can be redirected to the work in which the character most prominently or first appears, with an external link to Wookieepedia. It's a process that's worked fine with individual stubs for non-notable Star Trek series characters. As for providing a minimum amount of information: a sentence or two about lots of Jedi and Sith appearing in the Star Wars films and expanded universe would be fine for the Jedi article, with an EL to Wookieepedia's List of Jedi. --EEMeltonIV 15:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep all Given that Star Wars is one of the largest franchises ever and that 2 television series are coming out and will focus, according to George Lucas, on minor characters already mentioned, the possibility of these minor jedi being in the series is good. Delete this article and it's just more work to rewrite later. This information is worth preserving as the Star Wars universe is ever changing and any minor character could have a major role in either series. There are far worse articles to keep then this oneYodaminch 04:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC) — Yodaminch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- "There might be characters on this list that show up in a series still in development" is not a compelling reason to retain content. --EEMeltonIV 04:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, I'm no Star Wars fan, but this is a useful reference... also it's cross-linked everywhere and I figure a lot of work went into it. --Raistlin 13:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are lots of useful nuggets of information that are not and should not be part of Wikipedia; being useful" isn't a sufficient reason to keep or create content. And while considerate, the amount of work that went (or didn't go) into an article also isn't a compelling reason to keep (or delete) an article. --EEMeltonIV 14:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per all other keep !votes. The arguments for deletion seem weak to me. Atropos 05:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The burden of proof to keep/create content is on the editors retaining/adding it, not on those seeking its exclusion/deletion -- i.e., can you offer a substantive reason to keep the content, rather than simply saying that the arguments to delete "seem weak" (which in and of itself is a weak -- read: non -- rebuttal of the policy-supported rationales to delete this non-notable content)? --EEMeltonIV 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable for audience of fans -- which is just as legitimate as any other audience. 71.252.26.32 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - If it doesn't have any significance for a general audience, and esp. since it lacks any real-world notability, it would be better off at Wookieepedia. --EEMeltonIV 03:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All. The facts are that it's Star Wars, it took a lot of effort to compile, and it's useful - none of which are compelling arguments to Keep. However, put it this way - In the individual works, either film, book, game, etc., would a list of minor characters be permissable? If properly referenced, I believe so. I would consider these articles as sub-articles of the various works of Star Wars fiction, consolidating numerous, disparate references to the same characters across multiple works of fiction. So long as they are properly referenced, both as individual characters and as part of their original also-properly-referenced works of fiction, the lists should remain. I also object to the blanket nomination, though I believe the same criteria apply to all of the included lists. Further, the lists do need some cleanup and cruft-trimming, particularly to pare down any unreferenced inclusions - but cleanup is not a reason to delete. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 20:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for deletion is that they are not properly referenced and no sources exist to allow for proper referencing. If the problem isn't fixable, which it isn't, then it isn't clean up. Jay32183 21:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely they came from somewhere - if this were entirely OR, then I agree that it should be deleted. If there are references for some of the characters, however, then those references need to be added. If there isn't a reference that exists somewhere, then the character needs to go. Maybe I overestimate the number of characters who can be so referenced, but some of them have to have references somewhere. I add that, if deleted, someone else will simply come along and attempt to re-introduce the deleted information in articles for the original works, which will eventually be split into a new article, and it'll end up much like this one. A smaller, referenced article is preferable. ZZ Claims~ Evidence 22:19, 8 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.