Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  17:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gamorrean[edit]

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Star Wars articles plot sections. It is therefore trivial and duplicative, and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

  • Delete. I like it, but I'm not sure if this is at all notable outside star wars. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There must be some place to merge this information, no? Zagalejo^^^ 22:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you might consider merging to List of Star Wars races (F-J)#Gamorrean. RMHED (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per RHMED- Umbralcorax (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per RHMED. Edward321 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable, verifiable, unoriginal fancruft. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of Star Wars races (F-J)#Gamorrean. --EEMIV (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That which is redirectable is not deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'll forward that to Hallmark, since it's a pretty useless statement here. Do you have a policy to substantiate that? Maybe a diff from the Al Gore III AfD. The article's content now is entirely cruft (i.e. unsourced in-universe plot summary and trivia -- I know you need things like that spelled out). Best to remove wholly unencyclopedic content to prevent a fanboy from reverting a redirect, and then point to more appropriate List of Star Wars whatevers. --EEMIV (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have the policy of common sense. Your non-argument to delete is essentially useless and baseless. WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. As the content is encyclopedic, there is no reason for the edit history not to remain intact. Given all the Google books hits the subject is notable and verifiable by any reasonable or logical standard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, you calling on the ol' Google hits without looking at the content of what your search digs up. Plot summary/regurgitation all of it; nothing from which to create an article that offers out-of-universe, real-world perspective. Nothing that offers evidence of "significant coverage" by multiple, secondary sources. --EEMIV (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Google hits demonstrate multiple appeareances in multiple books, some of which are not simply novels or anything else, i.e. sufficient in and out of universe content and real world perspective from which to construct an article. In other word significant coverage by multiple secondary sources. Something made into multiple toys, that appears in scores of published books, in one of the all time most notable films, video games, etc. is notable. Any claim that such a thing is not notable is anti-logical and no reasonable policy could possibly support such a silly claim. I could show someone a banana and they can claim as much as they want that it is an apple, but it is still a banana. The same goes with these reliable sources. People can say that they're something else, but the reality remains that they are reliable and significant enough for a paperless encyclopedia. And the over 2000 monthly hits and various editors who have in good faith volunteered their time to work on this article since 2004 count far more in convincing me that the community consensus is in support of this article than three essentially "I don't like it" delete votes in a five day snapshot in time discussion. The article meets WP:RS and passses WP:PLOT and has significant coverage per the WP:GNG. Any claims otherwise are simply dishonest. Also, notability is inherited from them series, but even without that fact, the article has standalone notability as well. There is no legitimate reason to delete the article as it has coverage in independent and reliable sources. Whether the article cites them; they clearly exist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Or boldly redirect to the list of star wars races. Or delete it and redirect afterwards. The article cites no independent sources that offer significant coverage of the subject as required by WP:GNG. The article in its current state also cites a source that does not meet WP:RS and fails WP:PLOT. google hits are not notability. Vague waves are not notability. Notability is not inherited from the series. Stats of article access and editing aren't notability. coverage in independent, reliable sources imputes notability. that's it. This article cites none. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the article does not currently cite sources, it does not mean that we should delete it, rather we should cite the sources that do exist. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break[edit]

That is a complete falsehood, and you know exactly why. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell Frabrictramp has indeed included it there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICK. --EEMIV (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please don't be one. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's very clever. See, how you kind of spun that back around, kind of gave me advice, too? Wow. That's just... wow, my head is reeling. I'm going to sit down. --EEMIV (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been sitting all day...--Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"AFD; come for the policy discussions, stay for the witty repartee". I should copyright that phrase, but hey, it's Wikipedia, I'll give it away for free. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No reason we shouldn't have fun, too, no? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as some sources have been added. Perhaps this belongs in a list of Star Wars creatures rather than in its own article. 96T (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, would be appropriate in a specialist wiki such as Wookieepedia or possibly as a merge to a list of characters. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Napoleon would be suitable for a specialist wiki on military history, but he would also be suitable here. There's no reason we can't overlap with Wookiepedia or the many published Star Wars encyclopedias. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting note: This is a poor discussion all around, featuring mostly bare assertions ("this is notable!" "this is not notable!") or the usual boilerplate, seasoned with some silly drama. Editors should instead discuss whether the references present in the article, such as those now added by Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, confer sufficient notability.  Sandstein  16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on races in Star Wars and Delete this page. Or perhaps a redirect to the merged article would be worthwhile. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not serve to recapitulate the plot. I'm not familiar with the sections involved, and I couldn't figure out plots from here. But i could figure out some rough idea of t he group's overall role in the fiction a as a whole, and that;s the point of am article like this. Its better separated from the main article on groundsofreading convenience, but thats not a question for afd one way or another. What is relevant to AfD is three clear third party references. DGG (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep See what DGG said in the previous entry? I echo that. :) Ecoleetage (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per several independently-written and independently-published sources, including documentary sources such as such as Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Characters by Andy Mangels and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons, Star Wars: A Visual Dictionary, and many independently-written and independently-published fictional sources which involve the Gamorreans. Just because a source is "authorized" does not mean it is not "independent". These are not self-published sources created by the movie producers or obsessive fans in order to promote their own work, they are popular books from publishing companies independent of the movie studios and sold in independent bookstores, and some are written by independent authors. For example, Andy Mangels is a best-selling author and entertainment journalist, probably better known for his Star Trek novels than for his Star Wars books, and has apparently never even met George Lucas. To suggest that he is not an independent source for information about Star Wars is simply to deny reality. DHowell (talk) 21:55, 19 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gamorrean&oldid=1137869670"