Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:27, 23 April 2008

Jaina Solo

• Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo
• Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination)

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

Still no references, not even for the primary sources, let alone any reliable third-party secondary sources. Actual improvements since the last AfD in January have practically not happened. The people who voted to keep the article have not done any work on it. To this day, there is no assertion of notability, and I have yet to see an explanation on why this article needs to be split from the parent article in the first place; which in turn reflects another, even more serious problem: namely that the creation of this article was done due to a complete lack of effort to write from a real-world perspective. The persistently insufficient style of this article merely follows from that initial flaw. This happens when people count on eventualism to make things better. Eventualism in Star Wars articles means: eventually someone will come along and make the article even more in-universe. At best. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:05, April 21, 2008 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep as she is unquestionably a notable character, I think the sourcing problems can be resolved by at least adding some of the sources found here, and there has been some work on the article over the past few months. The suggestions above are definitely valid, but I believe can be rectified. Moreover, there is a clear interest in this article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Add at least one single reliable third-party source to verify the character's independent notability (which I couldn't find) into the article, and I promise I'll withdraw the AfD on the spot. Alternatively, tell me why this article should be split off from the parent article, and where this parent article is, and whether or not it is a proper summary style spin-out (probably List of minor Star Wars characters or some such). Dorftrottel (talk) 23:22, April 21, 2008

• She is covered in the following: , , etc. By the way, we agreed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Prostytutka. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, those are of course not independent, third-party sources. The novels were all published by Ballantine Books, and both character guide books were published by Ballantine branch Del Rey Books. They are purely commercial tie-in and thus cannot possibly serve to verify any notability. They are basically repackaged content, if you actually bought those books you have been ripped off — I assume you have bought or at least read those books since you seem convinced that the content they contain about Jaina Solo is sufficient for... whatever you believe it's sufficient for, you didn't say that above. What exactly is the content about Jaina Solo in those books? Does it e.g. include real-world information? Dorftrottel (warn) 02:17, April 22, 2008

• There are sufficient sources here that can be used to establish notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Which ones in particular? (And btw, you didn't answer my questions from above wrt to the character guides you mentioned.) Dorftrottel (warn) 09:00, April 22, 2008

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep , but sources are needed here. She seems to be a major character, but no sources are in the article. STORMTRACKER 94 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per nom. This stuff should not be tolerated. Eusebeus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see Misplaced Pages:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh Pumpkin, stop being so tedious and stop linking to that until you have actually read it - and feel free to check the edit history - and oh you should - while you are at it since you seem to be so keen on that section ;) Also, could you respond to this comment as well please? Eusebeus (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • As it states: "Also, this response should not be used to hide a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position--stating your true position in your own words will assure others that you are not engaging in this deceptive practice." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

        You are right that this invalidates the observation that In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. Can you reply to this comment as well please. Eusebeus (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Solo_family for lack of reliable sources -- 50% of the article's sources I just deleted as a citation to an unreliable, fan-generated encyclopedia. Something so notable, especially after what was supposed to be a kick-in-the-pants-AfD several months ago, should have more substantiation (and, ideally, out-of-universe substance) behind it. Perhaps these random offspring articles are best conglomerated into the family blurbs. The latter right now aren't that much better, but perhaps the minuscule data on this characters individually can come together to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no reason why even in a worst case scenario we would not merge and redirect without deleting per Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete. If a redirect is possible, then there's nothing to gain from an outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Major character in about a dozen bestselling novels, and a major young adult series. That fact is self-evident. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, that's the closest to a valid keep argument in this AfD so far. I still don't agree, but I acknowledge that point. Dorftrottel (canvass) 06:42, April 23, 2008

• I am not sure how valid a point that is because one still needs to demonstrate per the spinout principle at fiction that it has acquired enough critical reaction to provide for a real-world focus, no? Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• True, that's why I said "closest to". It's mainly in comparison to other arguments. Dorftrottel (canvass) 15:31, April 23, 2008

• Delete as this article has no real-world content, fails WP:PLOT and contains no real-world evidence of notability. There are no sources to verify its content, which must be classed as original research. There is no consensus to keep this article, which fails all of Misplaced Pages guidelines, policies which express standards that have community wide consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has significance to people in the real world, passes WP:PLOT and contains evidence of notability. Sources have been mentioned to verify its content and there is no evidence of original research. There is no consensus to delete this article, which passes all of Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • has significance to people in the real world - Where's the cited source to substantiate this? passes WP:PLOT - how so? The article is entirely plot summary of the text she appears in. contains evidence of notability - substantiated by what? Being notable in the EU ≠ being notable in the real world. The Databank article substantiates mattering in-universe, but says nothing about development, critical reaction, merchandising, or any of the other facets of/reactions to fiction that an appropriate treatment of fictional material requires. Sources have been mentioned to verify its content - where are they in the article? Your understanding of reliable sources seems dubious, as the source you added was a fan site blurb that cited a fansite encyclopedia for background information. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • This link demonstrates that it has significance to people in the real world. It passes Plot by being organized and having some out of universe information. Being notable in the EU = being notable to people in the real world as thousands of people will be familiar with this character. Your understanding of reliable sources seems dubious as the link to the Wookipedia article shows that a large number of sources can indeed be used to cite this article, but just need to be added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Misplaced Pages traffic is no way a metric for real-world notability -- it's a metric of Misplaced Pages traffic. Where are the professional critics commenting on this character's literary significance? development? Where is there a professional review of one of these EU books where Jaina's characterization is a key component? Where is the press release from Hasbro or LucasArts or Ertl indicating the release of a JS toy/game/model in response to the character's popularity? The article being "organized" has nothing to do with WP:PLOT; the only out-of-universe info. are three sentences about appearances -- but, again, nothing beyond "Hey, here she is." And rather than once again take an editor's phrasing and try to turn it around, please take a look at WP:RS -- if Wookieepedia has sources that "can indeed be used" in this article, why aren't they here in this article now? My guess is that it's all just another collection of primary sources and in-universe "encyclopedia"s substantiating gobs of plot summary. I note that two days after User:Dorftrottel's offer to withdraw the AfD, no one has yet cited a source a third-party source to substantiate the character's real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • • What have you found in your source searches and where have you looked? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Wookieepedia, fan sites and the database article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                • The fan sites demonstrate popularity and Wookieepedia provides a list of sources, while they and the database article may be primary in nature, they are reliable primary sources and the database article can be used for some out of universe information. Are there any Star Wars magazines that can be researched as well, especially ones with online archives? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Fan sites ≠ notability. The sci-fi.com forums are hugely popular -- producers like Ron Moore post there -- but they aren't notable. Internet phenoms are popular, but few are notable. --EEMIV (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • Fan sites = notability. They may not be the best reliable sources (although some are, such as this one, which typically cites reliable sources). Popularity is a sign of notability. Something that is a "phenomenon" is likely notable and likely to be covered in more and more sources over time, especially because Misplaced Pages:Notability does not degrade over time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • WP:N: Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. The assertion that "this is in EU, EU is popular, therefore this is notable" doesn't hold water. Find and cite some reliable third-party source that says this character is notable, or that demonstrates notability by discussion criticism, development, merchandising, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • We're talking about a character who appears on the cover of at least one novel in addition to as indicated below being made into a miniature figurine. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
              • Same here + promotional material from the publishing companies. Dorftrottel (criticise) 17:36, April 23, 2008
                • Would you consider this article a reliable source? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • It would substantiate a sentence along the lines of, "The Jaina Solo character has been merchandised into a Star Wars Miniatures figure." The rest of the blurb there is gameguide trivia.--EEMIV (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • But coupled with the primary sources, it adds some out of universe context and is therefore a start. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • Given this article's history -- particularly the lack of improvements the nominator pointed out -- I simply don't have faith that letting it linger here under the vague premise of "a start" will yield an appropriate article. Perhaps the best solution would be to entirely delete the plot summary, move that blurb about appearances and that miniature bit to Solo family or one of the myriad List of ______ Star Wars characters. --EEMIV (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • I have plenty of faith, considering all the articles that I personally came across as stubs and that were stubs with no sources for months (even years) and was able to drastically improve in even a few minutes of editing. It only takes one person knowledgeable about Star Wars with access to printed sources that even I don't have to suddenly find an article about a character from a notable franchise and develop it accordingly. I see no "gain" in deleting the article, especially since even in the course of this discussion at least some effort has indeed been undertaken to improve the article. Heck, imagine what we'd accomplish if all the time spent on the AfD was instead spent further looking for sources! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep a suitable topic for a specialist encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Um, would you mind elaborating a bit? How is that an argument to keep an article on a topic which has not received any coverage by reliable, third-party sources? Dorftrottel (ask) 15:42, April 23, 2008

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Above it is asserted that this topic appears in specialist encyclopedias. So it is also suitable for Misplaced Pages. Catchpole (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• (a) No, it is not. Reliable, third-party sources are invariably needed. (b) If you're talking about those tie-in character guides, they're not encyclopedias by any stretch of imagination. So you're in favour of appropriate deletion as far as our core content policies are concerned; everything else is negligible. Dorftrottel (complain) 17:30, April 23, 2008

No, I'm in favour of not limiting our coverage because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I fail to see why starwars.com and Star Wars fanzines are not reliable sources for Star Wars related material. Catchpole (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete due to a lack of independent, reliable sources about the topic. The phrase “Jaina Solo” gets a lot of Google hits, but mostly to fan sites. The published works appear to be official guides that do not provide the information needed for this article to pass WP:PLOT. I do not object to a redirect to Solo family, but that page is not any better.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Per Misplaced Pages:Potential, not just current state, an article on the ever growing Star Wars franchise has a realistic shot at potential. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• 'Comment You would have hoped for some improvement since the last AfD, but since there has been none, a realistic shot of notability is unlikely. Sincerely,--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Aside from the fact that "nobody's working on it" is considered an argument to avoid, the reality is that there has been improvement since the last AfD and so a realistic shot of notability is very likely. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 20:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It's good practice to provide a more specific search term to not give a false impression of the results, since ~90% of the returned results in your query are unrelated. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as this is just plain fancruft. She is a character only in the Star Wars "expanded universe", not in any of the Star Wars movies, that alone makes her not notable enough for her own article. At best, merge half a paragraph into The Last Command, otherwise delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Cruft" is never a serious or valid reason for deletion. And if we merge, then we legally cannot delete per Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 21:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for sharing. Changing !vote to strong delete per almost everything I said above minus the word "fancruft" and the partial merge suggestion. Take strong issue with User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles challenging every delete !vote. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You don't seem to understand how AfDs work. For one thing, it is a discussion and not a vote. We do not just go down the list of AfDs voting to delete as many articles as we can, because we personally do not like certain kinds of articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  Except when it suits you eh? Answering every comment is obnoxious, annoying, a breach of good faith and wikiquette, especially since all you do is repeat ad nauseum the same tired old points. Eusebeus (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  If you believe that, then why do you do it to me and others? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Media and music)
• AfD debates