Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yavin IV


 * 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 redirect to List of Star Wars planets (W-Z), merger left to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 17:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yavin IV

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot sections of the Star Wars stories where Yavin IV is featured. It is therefore trivial, duplicative, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Star Wars planets for now. the article as it stands cites unreliable sources (one wiki and one directory of objects made by the company).  Independent sources probably exist.  Some "quasi" indpendent sources surely exist (meaning works produced under license that might be used for WP:V purposes where wookiepedia wouldn't work)--"the illustrated star wars universe" comes to mind.  Also, the article currently is woefully incomplete.  For one, Yavin IV is a planet in SWG, that, at least, should be included (rather than suspicions about the 'other Y-wing pilot' in New Hope).  I anxiously await the howling and gnashing of teeth over the nomination of this article for deletion.  I'll dig around for sources, but I suspect that notability will be (at best) marginal.  In the case that we can't find sources inside of 5 days that assert notability per WP:GNG, we should redirect or delete this article. Protonk (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_planets_(W-Z) (a subsection under "Yavin"). Would hesitantly endorse a very selective merge -- Yavin IV is excessive plot summary, and the List of... is a little spare. Might be better instead first to copyedit/prose-ify the List of... content before considering any cut-and-paste. --EEMIV (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Cleanup, or, failing that, Redirect per above. Fairly major setting from Episode IV, i would be shocked if there wasn't enough third party sourcing out there to make a competent out-of-universe article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge if necessary to the list of planets, which didnt need coming here. DGG (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as I have made some revisions to the article to reference some information that was previously in a trivia section, but does anyone have such books as The Complete Locations of Star Wars: Inside the Worlds of the Entire Star Wars Saga and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons as they seem like logical references for any articles on Star Wars planets, moons, and other locations. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that isn't nearly enough referenced information to justify a whole article, and that second reference could be added to the first movie article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which would mean merge and redirecting then. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, because it I proposed a merger, and then only merged a sentence of a whole article and left the rest effectively deleted, that would not be a merger. Since 90% of the content of the article will be deleted, then yes, deletion is the appropriate response. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the extent and nature of hits this term gets, I just can't see any valid reason for outright deletion and in any event, aspects of the Star Wars are encyclopedic. Few works of fiction have had multiple encyclopedias published dedicated to various aspects of them.  What's good enough for multiple paper encyclopedias is surely good enough for the paperless encyclopedia.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As always, your rationale does not relate to the goals of wikipedia or its policies. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As always, my rationale is consistent with the goals and policies of encyclopedic and wikipedic tradition: "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimmy Wales explaining the goal of Wikipedia  What is trivia to you is not to those who worked on and come here to read this verifiable content.  And even duplicative content is redirectable content.  I see absolutely no compelling reason for this article to be redlinked.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As always, my rationale is consistent with the goals and policies of encyclopedic and wikipedic tradition: -- Le Grand, you've been asked repeatedly by other editors not to parrot comments. There are any number of ways you could have phrased your response to Judgesurreal. No one thinks you're clever when you change one or two words to change the meaning of someone's wording -- but, as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, it is glib, irritating and provocative. Please stop. --EEMIV (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop making glib, irritating, and provocative replies that add nothing to the discussion. No one finds such comments clever.  I am not going to legitimize or dignify nonsensical and off-topic comments.  We are talking about a verifiable and notable article that should not be redlinked; not about each other and the lack of consensus the community has regarding coverage of fictional topics.  I like others above have mentioned various reasons why the article should not be outright deleted.  So far only one has argued for outright deletion.  The article in question has existed for five years (since 2003).  Obviously, that also means five years of scores of editors and thousands of readers who believe the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is.  Therefore, we should be discussing how best to cover this information and not distract from the discussion by tossing in asides about the nature of each other's arguments in other disucssions.  Stay on target!  :) -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only did you not answer EEMIV's concerns, you did the exact thing he asked you not to do by repeating his comments. Then you went on an diatribe on your inclusion philosophy, when he isn't even commenting on the article but on your conduct. Can you be mature enough to answer someone's concerns in a clear, concise manner and stay on topic? You are (according to your user page at least) a professor at a university, and as such, I would hope that you do have the maturity necessary to do so. It's not a difficult request. None of us here care what deletion philosophy you have. We might disagree with it, but we respect it. All we want is for you to conduct yourself in a civil manner and stay on point. All you have to do is respond to this post with a simple affirmative that you will do so - I don't need a long message. Seriously, the path to acquiring others' respect is very easy, and the first way is your conduct, which I pray you can show here. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't answer ridiculous or even insulting comments that do not merit a response. All I want is for editors to conduct themselves in a civil and mature manner and stay on point.  I have no interest in feeding into efforts to derail the discussion or being baited.  A comment such as this does not advance discussion about the article and as such I replied in the manner that that comment deserved.  EEMIV responding to my comment in the fashion above without acknowledging that the comment I replied to was unhelpful similarlly was off-topic and thus unconstructive.  I replied to his comment in the manner that it too merited and ended with trying to get us focused back on the topic under consideration and not on each other.  I even did so by having Star Wars appropriate humor ("Stay on target" is quoted from the battle fought around the moon under discussion....)  Instead of helping to get the discussion on topic, your post merely continues to keep the discussion off-topic.  Where you have me baffled is you asked me not to comment to your posts and as you can see below I didn't and you said as well that you don't comment on my posts unless I comment to you, which I didn't do here, and yet you went ahead and commented to me anyway.  Please do not send mixed or confusing signals.  Either you want to discuss with me in AfDs or you don't.  I'm fine either way so long as we don't distractingly personalize things rather than productively do what we can to improve the project.  Now can we please get back to the actual article under discussion, which by the way I have improved further.  Thanks!  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Your inability to interact with others on even this basic a level astounds me. I see now that discourse with you on this matter is pointless. Do whatever you want. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 03:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, then we can get back to the actual topic under discussion, which has been improved since nominated and for which I believe has potential to improve further. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect - to List of Star Wars planets. The "real-world relevance" placed in the article is trivial. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 02:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary and in-universe details of a non-notable fictional location which has not received substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when the article contains out of universe commentary and has received substantial coverage from secondary sources as indicate above. For what it's worth, i.e. to toss an additional idea, secondary sources do cover the planets collectively in a critical fashion.  Note the first two paragraphs here that seem perhaps relevant to a master article on the planets in Star Wars in general.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as I am sure there are SW commentaries in sic-fi magazines etc. or could be merged into a List of Star Wars planets, and that is expanded from each. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 6 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.