Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Sector Authority

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Sector Authority[edit]

This article lists a lot of "references" that do not appear to assert any notability for the article; some of them appear to be Star Wars novels, and others are fan encyclopedias, which do not count as secondary sources. And as such, it has not demonstrated notability and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to notability and reliable sources concerns of nominator, the page is also written from an in-universe perspective. RJC ^Talk 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An encyclopaedia most definitely does count as a source. We even have a citation template, {{cite encyclopedia}}, for such things. The contention that there are no reliable sources is far from proven. Indeed, there are in fact three non-fiction sources cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet again, as I have told you and others many times, it is the responsibility of those who would keep material on wikipedia to prove its notability, not the other way around. And there is no evidence that any of those books are actually cited in the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No evidence that they are cited? Rubbish! The citations are right there in the References section. And no, the burden for demonstrating notability is not that one-sided. As stated in Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage, you are required to look for sources yourself as well, to see what sources exist. You haven't. Handily, the article cites three already. You're simply blithely ignoring them, and now even outright claiming that they aren't there, despite the evidence of your own eyes when you read the article. Don't be surprised if you find that you don't make a convincing case for deletion that way. Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are fan sites, novels, and fan encyclopedias do not count as reliable secondary sources, so they basically aren't there, your right. Therefore, if they don't count, there are no references that establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep. Personally I've never heard of it, and I'm not even slightly interested, but it does seem to be mentioned in several Star Wars books. Are these independent of the source? I'd say 'no', in which case they don't count for establishing notability. (How can an encyclopaedia be classed independent, or 'non-fictional' if it deals entirely in a fictional world's subject matter!?) However, it also appears briefly on other on-line encyclopaedias and sites and is mentioned in passing in an on-line dictionary source. Enough? :/ I'm not convinced. But I'd err on the side of 'very weak keep', at least until WP:Fiction is resolved. The Zig (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 08:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In-universe, and real-world notability not established. The sources in the article can imho not be regarded as fully independent third-party sources, since they deal only with the Star Wars universe and provide no substantial, peer-reviewed analysis of any real-world aspects. Such "encyclopedias" as mentioned are in fact tie-in product, regardless of any direct (financial) ties to the copyright holder. User:Dorftrottel 10:25, January 22, 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to The Han Solo Adventures - Uncle G's "non-fiction" sources are simply an amalgamation and presentation of fictional plot lines. The CSA is prominent only in Daley's Han Solo books and in the corresponding CSA sourcebook from West End; it is a background piece elsewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The idea that the sources can be dismissed as fan and tie-in product is empty because most sources are intended for those with an appetite for the material that they contain. Academicians are fans of their subject and have a vested interest in it too. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Can you point toward an academic or any other reliable source who's provided out-of-universe information about this topic? If not, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. --EEMIV (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources already provided seem reliable and adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Inclusion in an indiscriminate lists of acronyms (thefreedictionary) and fictional governments (open encyclopedia) -- neither of which provides more than the name -- and Wikipedia mirrors (123exp-art and wizards.pro) are hardly sources at all. They do nothing to establish notability, and don't even provide any information. --EEMIV (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Straw men. These are not the sources you are looking for. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—the references used by the article are not independent of the source and are thus not sufficient to establish notability. The links provided by Zig are entries in a list with no description and articles adapted from Wikipedia, Wookiepedia, or something else unsatisfactory. I spent a little time doing a Google search and came up with wikis and fan sites—nothing that seemed useful as a secondary source. Thus, I must conclude that the article is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and appears unlikely to be expanded to contain out-of-universe material verifiable by reliable secondary sources. Pagra shtak 02:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment just to back up what Pagra shtak says, I spent a while googling this before, and those few links I put up were EVERYTHING I could find that might count as independent sourcing, and frankly they're unimpressive. The first are unedited, and looking again, I just noticed that this one is also directly derived from WP. So really it comes down to one dictionary cite for an acronym of CSA. To me that seems trivial, but it is undoubtedly an independent cite. Does that do it?! I'm unclear. I'm certainly not against deletion here. If people decide it should be deleted, by all means do it. However, as it has had some work put into it - especially so far as SW-dependent sources to prove its accuracy - could it perhaps be merged into something? I'm really not a Star Wars fan, so I can't say. The Zig (talk) 09:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are 3 books being cited that aren't fiction. I'm not clear which ones of those you think aren't valid. I'm no Star Wars person, so I don't have a clue either, but it looks like this is reasonably well sourced. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those "reference" books take an in-universe approach to the material; it's simply rehash of plots presented elsewhere in the Star Wars Expanded Universe. --EEMIV (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep as sourced adequately. But that " fan encyclopedias" aren't RSs is a novel theory. It's wrong of course, because one could say that of every subject encyclopedia: an encyclopedia of history wouldn't show notability for articles on history. DGG (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll add this; fan encyclopedias are just repetitions of the plot of the subject at hand, and do not add any information, such as concept and creation, reaction, or any other information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I don't know anything about these these encyclopedias, such things often do add quite a bit beyond what was in the show. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems well sourced. I would really like page numbers for some of these books though. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - None of the sources substantiate an assertion of real-world notability. There is no out-of-universe commentary on this topic. --EEMIV (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect there is, but don't have access to them. Do you? Hobit (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG and Uncle G, amongst others. The logic that an enyclopedia isn't enough is ridiculous; heck many GAs/FAs are written from sources dedicated to the subject matter (since few newspapers discuss Age of Mythology, for instance...). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 10:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All those "encyclopedias" offer is a regurgitation of in-universe plot summary from other texts. They do not provide any real-world content or context, nor assert any real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.