Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luminara Unduli


 * 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. Wizardman 00:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Luminara Unduli

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No assertion of notability of any kind. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep due to astonishing degree of notable coverage in multiple published books and news stories. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN is never a valid reaosn for deletion, especially due to the significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unreferenced, non-notable, in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially for topics covered in multiple published sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, look at all the insignificant, passing references...the lack of meaningful third-party coverage...and all the plot. This looks like a wealth of knowledge to justify inclusion...at Wookieepedia. --EEMIV (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus all the significant substantial references in third-party sources and out of universe information (such as this review of the action figure) justifies inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean, of that list of hits, the one third-party text that just gives the character's name...oh, and that really interesting three-line excerpt where the name is actually part of a sentence? You gleaned significant coverage from that? --EEMIV (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I mean all the various sources, including those that review just her action figure in a critical manner. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the all-important action figure review, which source that you've linked to do you think is a third-party reliable source offering "significant coverage" of this topic? --EEMIV (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The scores of others that turned up in the various searches as indicated. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link to a specific third-party/secondary source that you think offers "significant coverage" of this topic. --EEMIV (talk) 04:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already provided one. If you type in her name with key words like "interview" and "review", you'll find others.  For example, in this interview, an author is asked: "The Jedi Master Luminara Unduli is an unusual and entertaining character. How did you create her character -- were you given much guidance as to her?"  And the author replies: "No guidance at all. Just a name and a couple of artist's renderings. I wanted to make her as different from the more familiar Jedi as I could without overstepping the bounds I alluded to in the previous question. It's unreasonable, for example, to expect a female Jedi to think exactly like a male Jedi...or an alien one...in every situation."  Which is out of universe information from a reliable source.  And complements the out of universe critical review of her action figure, i.e. yet another iteration of this character who has appeared in films, books, toys, etc.  All of these sources add up.  I would reckon you may also want to check relevant Star Wars magazines that don't necessarily have online archives.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Character has appeared in two movies, two novels, two video games, and an animated series. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Coverage of the subject that exists is brief, tangential and shallow. It isn't the extreme example of "trivial" offered in the footnotes to WP:N but it isn't far off.  I don't think that this article cites significant coverage in independent sources, failing WP:GNG.  But as there are some citations and some out of universe coverage, there is hope for it. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break

 * Update: Article has been referenced and expanded to include out of universe information. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as the improved article now meets the standards for both notability and verifiability as well as covering the subject in an encyclopedic manner. - Dravecky (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw - The article has now established a very small modicum of notability, and i believe we should adjourn this AFD and go for a merger to a character list, as the character has demonstrated enough notability for a paragraph of information in one of the star wars character lists. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. John254 14:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Judge, but it has enough now for an article. The RW information would fit better there than a character list, which just briefly describes the character without the RW part. When there is sourced RW information, then, for those holding to the General notability criteria, the article is an unequivocal keep. DGG (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable, unorigninally researched fancruft. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 23:03, 14 August 2008 (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.