Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars Sith characters (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 articles. I am acutely aware of the controversial nature of these articles. Nevertheless they exist as article which fail WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N and perhaps WP:OR. They have existed long enought to have been sourced but no one has been able to do so. -JodyBtalk 16:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Also nominating the following related articles:

These articles are plot summaries (WP:NOT) with no real world context. They don't meet notability requirements for fiction (WP:FICT) and there's nothing here to suggest that they ever can. There has been no improvement in any of these articles since the last AfD.  Mi re ma re  19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep All Not notable enough for their own articles but the list itself is fine. Characters from one book appear or are referred to in other books. Hammer1980 ·talk 20:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you think they are "fine"? Didn't you read the nomination?  Mi re ma re  01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Minor characters are not notable enough for mention anywhere but in the plot summaries (and then only if they do something of significance to the plot).  All of these minor character lists fail WP:FICT and are excessive fancruft. Belongs on a Star Wars wiki or on a fan site, but not in an encyclopedia. Collectonian 21:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All Just because they haven't been improved doesn't mean they cannot be improved. There is no deadline for improvement. Rray 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that they fail basic notability requirements is the reason for nomination, not that they haven't been improved. That they haven't been improved, despite narrowly surviving an AfD, just illustrates how unlikely it is to happen at all.  Mi re ma re  01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I disagree that it's unlikely that these will be improved, and I also disagree that these fail basic notability requirements. Rray 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Transwiki/Delete (in that order, whatever works best). Comic and video game characters have a hard time establishing notability, and I fear a list of minor such characters have even less a chance. Sufficient time has been given, and the article could not build on the trust it has been given in previous AfD. The article should not exist as such any longer (though the information may find a new home somewhere else). – sgeureka t•c 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction & Fantasy-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All: The articles are large enough as they are, merging would make that worse. Mdmkolbe 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all articles fail WP:Plot, WP:WAF, and WP:Fict, Wikipedia is not a star wars wiki.Ridernyc 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as we just had a discussion in October, the list is discriminate, and it covers a notable subject. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you tell us why these minor characters are notable per Wikipedia's definition of the word? As for the previous AfD, repeat nominations happen. The article's faults were not, and have not since, been addressed.  Mi re ma re  14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They are characters from perhaps the most successful science fiction franchise in history that includes games, movies, comics, toys, etc. Many don't like nomination too closely together.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 14:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, but while everyone has heard of Han Solo, the characters listed here are widely unknown and still don't establish notability (and probably can't) even as a group. – sgeureka t•c 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thousands or millions of fans of the expanded universe may be familiar with these characters. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While thousands or millions of fans may very well be somewhat familiar with the expanded universe, it doesn't mean that they are with these characters. Wookiepedia is pretty good with listing every minor detail for interested readers, but that doesn't mean that wikipedia should lower its notability barrier just because the SW universe is so vast. – sgeureka t•c 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, thank you for responding, though you have not answered my question: how are these characters notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notable? Whether characters are popular or whatever is fairly subjective, but has nothing to do with notability, which is proved by coverage in reliable secondary sources. I don't believe this AfD is "too close" to the last, which was over two months ago - two months is more than enough time for some sources to be cited.  Mi re ma re  17:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. Consensus can change, but Le Grand refuses to accept this. Anything in a second nomination, he uses the excuse of "it was kept before" or similar excuses. RobJ1981 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The closing admin. will no doubt be wise enough to judge the various arguments appropriately without such hints. Most admins. closing discussions on AfD pay a certain amount of attention to discussions on AfD in general. You may not always like what an admin decides is the consensus, but that does not mean that we as a class are necessarily less perceptive than you are. It might even have been more perceptive to notice that the previous AfD was a non-consensus close, and therefore does not in any way establish any previous consensus. DGG (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete All as this article fails WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FICT and WP:NOT. Because there are no primary sources, I cannot see any justification for keeping, otherwise what is the point of having WP guidelines? Improvement seems to be the strongest argument put forward so far, but I would recomend deletion and starting from scratch with an article that cites its primary sources, rather than copying and pasting from Wookipedia, as appears to have been the case here.--Gavin Collins 15:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, Gavin. How do you know the article was copied and pasted from Wookiepedia? Is it equally possible that the article on Wookiepeedia was copied from here? Thanks again. Rray (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I am assuming good faith that this article is not original research. As the source of this article cannot be verified, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that Wookipedia is the primary source of this article's content. However, it is not possible to rule out the possibility that it is original research either. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Gavin, but I don't think I understand your answer to my question. (Maybe my question was unclear.) You indicated that the article appears to have been copied from the Wookiepeedia, and I'd asked if it was possible that the Wookiepeedia article had been copied from here. I wasn't really asking if you thought the content could be verified or if it was original research. Rray (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ...You are aware that the page history can be checked to see how the contents formed, and that copyright violations are incredibly apparent to recent changes patrollers - and met with disproportionate force, and that you should probably take it easier considering that you've previously accused people copying content here from a site that copies content from here? --Kizor (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Without primary sources, your guess as to where this material comes from is as good as mine. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why did you say the material appeared to have been copied from the Wookiepeedia? Rray (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Because the article covers the same ground as the Wookipedia entries, only the Wikipedia version does not quote the sources from which the characters are derived.--Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. None of the characters in this list have received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The real-world coverage and relevance of this article is less than minimal. As well, no one here seems to have a realistic plan to address these concerns, perhaps because there's no real way to address the real-world significance of a list of characters that even Star Wars fans call minor... Not only trivia, but lesser trivia. Chromancer (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ongoing lack of sources two months after first AfD, lack of an assertion of notability, and absence of an out-of-universe perspective. These characters don't inherit notability from noteworthy franchise. This is all trivia. I'd be okay with substantial trimming and amalgamating too-specific Lists of... (e.g. Separatist characters, Imperials, Republic characters, these lists) into something formatted similarly to List_of_Shakespearean_characters:_A-K - a one-sentence blurb identifying appearance and role. But none of this physical description and plot summary, and infobox clutter. --EEMIV (talk) 23:58, 9 December 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.