Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nom Anor


 * 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.  I'm somewhat perplexed with some of the arguments regarding policy consensus: WP:PLOT is currently part of WP:NOT, a policy. It seems to be applicable, too, as the article consists entirely of plot summary.  Sandstein  07:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Nom Anor

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is an in-universe repetition of the plot section of the New Jedi Order book series articles. It is therefore repetitive and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article consists entirely of plot summary without real-world context or analysis, which violates WP:NOT. It also currently lists no sources, and Google turned up only unreliable fansites/forums and unrelated hits (seems to be a popular username for people to use in online communities), which indicates that significant coverage from reliable secondary sources does not exist and that notability criteria cannot be met. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, no article asserts notability through reliable sources unless there is a citation from a person describing the subject as "notable." And even then, only that particular writer feels it's notable. WP:NOT does not have consensus and "repetitive" is not a reason for deletion. WP:N is not a policy and The New Jedi Order book series appears to be notable. Wikipedia is not paper so there's no reason Wikipedia couldn't cover this character. The books are acceptable primary sources. Lack of "analysis" is not a reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, WP:V is not disputed, and needs to be followed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and everything that occurs in the books is verifiable by consulting the books. --Pixelface (talk) 04:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence for notability in the sense of Notability_(fiction). The text in its present form miserably fails the requirements of WP:WAF. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, plot summary without outside sources. Pixelface may want to read User:Uncle G/On notability, as there seems to be some confusion about just what notability is. It certainly has nothing to do with the question of whether the writer used the word "notable". --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should I read a userspace essay? Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. The only way to assert a subject is notable like the nominator says, is by citing a reliable source that calls the subject notable, and even then, you are only attributing a claim of notability to a particular person. To assert a subject is notable when a source does not say the subject is notable, is to make a conclusion the source did not make. It's a claim unsupported by the source. It's like saying "Well they wouldn't write about it if the subject wasn't cool! So it must be cool because they wrote about it!" A person might as well say that Nom Anor is worthy of notice because you're here discussing it. --Pixelface (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misconceptions about notability. It has nothing to do with somebody claiming the subject notable. Notability is established by the amount of substantial coverage a topic receives from reliable sources independent of the subject. The sources' conclusions are irrelevant, the coverage is what matters. Hypothetically speaking, if a few reliable sources all devoted significant coverage to topic and declared that it was unimportant, Wikipedia would still have an article about that topic simply to describe how unimportant it is. Despite that you are were trying to prove the opposite, your statement about what's "cool" is, in a roundabout way, actually a fairly accurate description of notability guidelines here if you replace "cool" with "notable" - just read the nutshell of WP:N. By the way, this AFD debate wouldn't count for notability because we are not reliable sources. The link Dhartung provided is a nice supplement to WP:N, which would probably help to explain notability better than I did here. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now how does coverage make something worthy of notice? How does coverage = notability? And I know my statement about what's "cool" is an accurate description of WP:N. You could replace the word "cool" with anything: "lame", "stupid", "funny", "awesome", whatever. You're saying coverage means a subject is...whatever...and using coverage as some kind of "proof" of that. It doesn't add up. To say that people writing about a topic means it's worthy of notice, means that everyone here, writing about the topic, means the topic is worthy of notice. WP:N is a mess. And I glanced at that user essay. Is it "notability" that stops Encyclopedia Brittanica from becoming a directory instead of an encyclopedia? The essay says "If multiple people in the world at large that are independent of the subject have gone to the effort of creating and publishing non-trivial works of their own about the subject, then they clearly consider it to be notable." That doesn't follow. They might as well have gone to the effort of writing about the subject because they have a mortgage payment. That essay also says "Notability is not subjective" but whether or not a subject is worthy of notice, worthy of someone's attention can only be subjective, there is nothing objective about "notability." I suppose you could say "coverage" is objective, but "notability" cannot be objective. --Pixelface (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pixelface, it's up to you whether you want to read what in my opinion is the best and fairest interpretation of our notability guideline on the site. In the end it doesn't matter, though, because as a guideline it does have broad consensus as a basis for deletion. You may have your own approach to notability, but I do recommend you at least understand the community's definition better if you wish to debate it (and here is not the place). --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've glanced over the essay and it's full of clearly false statements. And I understand the supposed "community's definition" and Judgesurreal777 has clearly misinterpreted WP:N, which says notability can only be presumed. It isn't something you can assert. The essay is wrong when it says "Notability is not subjective" and WP:N is wrong when it says "Notability requires objective evidence." Whether or not something is worthy of attention is a subjective opinion, there's nothing objective about it. Something that one person finds worthy of their attention, another person may not. Notability is not some worldwide binary variable. --Pixelface (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you feel notability is judged that way I suppose there's no convincing you otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 04:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I agree with Dhartung. You seem to have serious problems with the fundamentals of notability that have been in use here for years. I don't think there is anything I can say to help you understand it better. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In other circumstances, this would be considered disruption. Oh Delete per all the above: viz, N, FICT, etc... Eusebeus (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:WAF and WP:FICT.  a s e nine  say what?  06:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Asenine.--Berig (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, as WP:FICT lacks consensus, and the article is consistent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on fictional characters or Star Wars of which exists many published volumes, such as this one. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unreferenced, non-notable. --EEMIV (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article does have some references, but calls to reference it further should be addressed per SOFIXIT. Notability on Wikipedia is relatively subjective per WP:JNN.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you see my contention is that no "fixing" can be done, as there is no real world coverage of this topic. And since there isn't anything here but plot information, it can't be fixed by improvment, only be deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Major publications on Star Wars just keep coming out and so if anything Star Wars articles can increasingly be fixed by improvement. Only hoaxes, libel, and copy vios need be deleted.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, nothing other than a plot summary. Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor is it Britannica or Compton's, but we have many articles that they have as well. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the coverage of a fictional subject as a whole is what cannot be plot summary--an appropriate plot summary is encyclopedic content.DGG (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as obvious violation of WP:PLOT. Jakew (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which as has been stated obviously lacks consensus. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That has, as you rightly say, been stated. However, the fact that a statement has been made does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Moreover, I would point out that, in addition to WP:PLOT, the article fails WP:V, WP:PSTS, WP:FICT, and WP:N. Just to clarify, I hold this view whether or not it has been stated that these policies and guidelines lack consensus. Jakew (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be verified in sources, FICT similarly lacks consensus. And it passes what wikipedia is in that Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia and there are even published specialized encyclopedias on specialized sources.  Thus, it passes those policies and guidelines that do have consensus.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per WP:NOT and (seemingly) WP:N. I couldn't find a character list for his affiliation or for the book series he appeared in, so he can't be merged at the time if there was in fact anything noteworthy about him in one way or another. – sgeureka t•c 14:46, 16 May 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.