Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:36, 25 January 2008

Jacen Solo

Jacen Solo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

No real-world notability has been established since the article's creation in January 2003. The article is essentially another fictional biographical account compiled from plot summaries. Also, there is a far more appropriately placed well-written and in-depth article on Wookieepedia. User:Dorftrottel 10:13, January 22, 2008 10:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Tentative keep but stubify - Star Wars fans' voting for his "Darth" name I think is sufficient for inclusion...somewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:FICT for lack of real world WP:RS comment. Beyond the Darth Who? contest mentioned above, my searches found one critic's opinion about the Darth Caedus story line. Everything else comes from the plot. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - There must be a character list he could be merged to, or at least have these one-two facts put on that list. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, major character in best-selling series of novels and comics. I suspect sources exist but are hard to find due to prevalence of fan sites. Barring keep, should at least be merged into List of minor Star Wars characters rather than deleted outright. Same as with Jaina Solo. Powers 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See Misplaced Pages:V#Burden of evidence: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." Therefore, your argument effectively boils down to a delete. User:Dorftrottel 20:14, January 23, 2008
• Delete, no reliable sources or evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Commment On further thought, the best option might be to merge Jacen, Jaina and Anakin Solo into the single article Solo family, with only a limited amount of information on each. I possibly should have proposed that instead; but I certainly don't think we need an extensive article on each of them. Terraxos (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per LtPowers. —Disavian (/_contribs) 22:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not a majority vote. Also, although LtPowers doesn't accept this yet, his argument is one for deletion. User:Dorftrottel 00:29, January 23, 2008
    • Nonsense. I said they're hard to find, not impossible. I frankly don't have time to sort through search results looking for needles in haystacks every time an AfD pops up to set a 7-day deadline on finding sources. Main characters of best-selling novel series are presumptively notable; absence of sources is cause for improvement, not deletion. Powers 12:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • No, they're not presumptively notable. If a character is going to have an article that stands alone from source material, an assertion of that character's separate notability -- not inherited from notable source material -- needs to articulated and substantiated. --EEMIV (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Nonsense, LtPowers. You're voting keep in what ostensibly is a discussion, and your "rationale" is actually an argument for deletion. Please come up with any reliable, third-party source to verify notability, or alternatively please accept that this article should not exist on Misplaced Pages. It's as easy as that. User:Dorftrottel 13:25, January 24, 2008
        • If the situation was as clear-cut as you insist, we wouldn't need AfD discussions, would we? I never used the word "vote", and I'm not the one trying to strongarm my position in lieu of actual discussion. What I'm saying is that due to the character's position as a major character in a best-selling series of novels, notability can and should be presumed while sources are found -- a task made difficult by a preponderance of non-reliable sources referring to the character. How you see that to be an argument for deletion is baffling. Powers 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
          • For all relevant purposes, non-existent and untraceable sources have exactly the same value here: none. If you actually did your best looking for reliable third-party sources, and if that search didn't yield any results, the logical consequence should be for you to assume that those sources do not exist. Either that, or you should keep looking if you would like this article to be kept. But coming here and throwing in a barring keep, speculating on the existence of good sources, is a complete non-sequitur. User:Dorftrottel 14:46, January 24, 2008
• Keep Major character in a notable series RogueNinja_talk 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • If the character were notable, reliable third-party sources shouldn't be hard to find. User:Dorftrottel 00:29, January 23, 2008
    • That doesn't necessarily follow. As I noted above, sources are hard to find due to a large amount of fan-generated material cluttering the results. Powers 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
      • So you're saying that reliable sources might exist, but they can't be found? User:Dorftrottel 14:55, January 23, 2008
        • No, I'm saying they're hard to find. I'm tiring of my words being twisted to sound less reasonable than I intend. Powers 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
          • "I suspect sources exist but are hard to find due to prevalence of fan sites." — Those are your words. You "suspect". In other words: You are speculating that such sources exist, but you do not know. There's no need to twist your logic any further. User:Dorftrottel 14:46, January 24, 2008
            • I was referring to your "can't be found" clause. Don't you get tired of these semantic games? Powers 02:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
              • Yes, and thanks for asking, but I can't seem to afford it since you seem not to get tired of not seeing the essential flaw in your reasoning. User:Dorftrottel 07:36, January 25, 2008
      • Material added/restored to the project needs to be substantiated by verifiable sources; the burden is on editors who want to add/restore material to provide that verifiability. The editors of this article haven't -- whether that's because the sources don't exist or are just hard to find doesn't particularly matter. They're not there, the article's content is unreferenced, and needs to the axed/trimmed to what can be substantiated. --EEMIV (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I fully agree, and so does policy. See Misplaced Pages:V#Burden of evidence. That section also unambiguously states: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Misplaced Pages should not have an article on it." User:Dorftrottel 19:04, January 23, 2008
• FWIW, I could agree to a stubbifying and/or merging approach, with the important qualification that each and all unverifiable material must be removed. User:Dorftrottel 14:58, January 23, 2008
• Keep This is actually just the same as what the nom says just above, because the fictional work itself is an accepted source for the details, and therefore everything here should be verifiable. Any general conclusions can come from the many works about the overall subject that will discuss the connections. major continuing characters in major series are best handled by separate articles. DGG (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates