Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandalorian

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 Merge all into Mandalorian. Since this requires keeping the articles and redirecting them, and since I will not be the one doing the merging, this will result in a keep closure for all with instruction to editors to merge them accordingly. For more details, please see this AFD's talk page. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mandalorian[edit]

Entirely plot summary. No references to reliable sources. No assertion of real-world notability. While Boba Fett may be a notable topic, the various background fiction the character has spawned has no significance beyond the galaxy far, far away; better suited for Wookieepedia. (Note that "sources" in Mandalorian War are either primary sources or an in-universe reference book that simply amalgamates plot points much like the article does.) --EEMIV (talk) 02:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV ([[User talk:EEMIV|talk]02:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there is no assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Better suited for Wookieepedia. --Funper (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes? Our mathematical knowledge would be better suited for specialist peer-reviewed mathematical works. Our astronomical knowledge would be better suited for NASA. We could blow up the encyclopedia without decreasing the sum total of human knowledge. --Kiz o r 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that mathematics and astronomy can receive a treatment that is inline with Wikipedia's standards, i.e. as an amalgamation of secondary sources. The nominated articles, however, have no secondary sources, and the one clump of sources in one article provide only an in-universe, make-believe plot summary -- and unlike astronomy and math, this material does not align with Wikipedia's criteria for content inclusion/retention. --EEMIV (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the difference is that articles on astronomy or mathematics such as Asteroid 123456 or Direct sum of modules have no sources, no general notability and little readership. Mandalorian had about 10 times the readership of Direct sum in Dec 2007 and a hundred times the readership of the asteroid spam (the numbers being 9202, 985 and 81 respectively). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 11:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Don't compare science to star trek. --Funper (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WARS, Funper. Star WARS. (Don't cheese off the fans--they WILL mess you up.) (wink) Gladys J Cortez 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as there are no primary sources to verfify the content, no secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The article is comprised of plot summary with an in universe persective, which means it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. This is perfect example of fancruft that is better suited to the Annex.--[[ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavin.collins (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Recognizable aspect of fictional universe. Primary sources are mentioned in the articles that verfify the content. Plus as Wikipedia contains elements of a specialized encyclopedia, i.e. is not a clone of Compton's or Britannica, but goes further, these article should be improved rather than deleted. We should, however, encourage our editors to use additional sources in the articles as in-line citations, but that's a cause for improvement, not deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recognizable ≠ notable. The "content" "verified" by the "cited" books is all plot summary, which is insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Recognizable to a large number of people all over the world = notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great. Cite that claim. So recognizable and notable, where is the third-party coverage and commentary? --EEMIV (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Check through some gaming and science fiction magazines and see what you can find. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Um, no. The burden of proof is on editors adding or restoring content. I think this material should be deleted. If you think it should be kept, then put in the elbow grease to improve the article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        While it may be easier to nominate articles for deletion, it would be far more helpful to assist editors in finding the sources and improving the articles. There is no deadline on Wikipedia and even the most established of encyclopedias have had their errors, which given time to grow have been corrected. For example, first edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica said California was located in "the West Indies. The encyclopedia, published in 1768, also noted that 'it is uncertain whether it be a peninsula or an island.'" (See the entry for Friday, January 18, 2008 on 365 Amazing Trivia Facts from Workman Publishing.) Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Neat. My knowledge on the historical status of California was based solely on old maps and I thought they settled that in the 17th century. --Kiz o r 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It just goes to show that given time and effort articles can and do improve over time and we've only been around a few years let alone centuries like Britannica! Anyway, I have followed EEMIV's advice and made some additional improvements to the article under discussion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. So, at least it's a start and a sign in the right direction. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I'll throw in a keep here and elaborate if I have time after the more urgent task of finishing an essay on the ethical impact of killer robots. "Burden of proof?!" This isn't a contest! --Kiz o r 00:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm happy to read that and wish you luck on the essay! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes, burden of evidence is a very important concept in mainspace and also discussions. You can't just assert something, you have to back it up. If you were to assert that the earth is flat, it's on you to provide reliable sources to back that up, not on me or anyone else to refute it. Actually sending someone else off to find sources for the claims I made is simply un-fucking-believable. It's incompatible with WP:AGF and incompatible with Wikipedia. Unproved assertions are an ill that has been plagueing AfD for far too long. Stop it already! Cite your sources or begone! User:Dorftrottel 13:52, February 3, 2008

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even Google Scholar has references to this stuff. The nomination just seems to be subjective cruftcruft. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one is an in-universe time-line, the second uses "Mandalorian" in conjunction with discussing Fett's armor. A redirect to [[Boba Fett] may be appropriate -- but the material here is in-universe, non-notable and uncited. --EEMIV (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except mandalorian proper I think we should keep the main article on mandalorians but we don't need all the other stuff. Cryo921 (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Non-notable in the real-world. Doubtful that reliable, secondary sources exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mandalorian but Merge/Delete the rest it is as notable as Wookiee, Chiss, Hutt, etc. Mind you non of them meet notability either. --Sin Harvest (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article and merge the others. There is a discussion of real world aspects and significant published references; that meets the formal requirements, so objection to it might be based on a desire to minimize coverage of what might have personally be thought to be an unimportant subject. A reasonable nomination would not have included the main article. If fact, no nomination was needed, the others could have simply been merged. I am getting reluctant to AGF when the nomination is this indiscriminate. I myself couldn't care less about the SW expanded universe. If deletions had tuck to the really minor articles I'd have supported them from the beginning. I kept asking the deletors of such articles to compromise about things like that, but they still insist on nominating them all. DGG (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point toward this "discussion of real world aspects"? You mean the blurb in the lead which is never followed up upon or expanded in the Mandalorian intro.? Significant published sources? In that main article, I see two "references" to unreliable fan sites, the reference to the debate book to substantiate the big-whoop that one novel "expands" on the make-believe culture (which is simply just a general comment on plot), and the fourth offers back-up for an entirely in-universe observation. That's hardly the basis for an article. Again, the notion of what a "Mandalorian" is and who they are is trivial background window dressing; there may be some notable Mandalorian characters, or folks associated with them (e.g. the Fetts), but that notability does not get transferred do this group. I've always found that a good starting point and litmus test to ascertain whether an element of Star Wars has any notability is whether the starwars.com folks care enough about it to make a Databank entry -- and there is none for Mandalorian, Mandalore, the armor, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Star Wars articles - can't never have enough of 'em. We have ceased to even attempt to purport we're an encyclopedic project. And, yes of course, each and every nomination of a oh-so-notable fiction something happens in bad faith and can accordingly be labeled WP:CRUFTCRUFT. Also, personal attacks on the trolling nominator whose only goal is to destroy Wikipedia are thus justified and even encouraged. How dare this unbeliever? User:Dorftrottel 13:20, February 3, 2008

Comment. All sides in the current brou-ha-ha about fiction are committed to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. If you can link us to an unambiguous and agreed definition of an encyclopedia, please do so and you'll earn the gratitude of everyone involved. Otherwise - and Lord knows this took me years to notice - try to remember that walking away from the keyboard is an option if you feel that you can't conduct yourself properly. The "Save page" button is likely our most valuable asset, as it can be used as a filter between our brains and fingers. Thanks, Kizor 14:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "walking away from the keyboard is an option if you feel that you can't conduct yourself properly" — same to you, comrade, same to you. E.g. WP:EVERYTHING provides some useful hints for the un~~washed~~informed. And: no. no. Not all people involved in the "brouhaha" as you eloquently put it are "committed to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia". Exactly not. Incidentally, those who create the whole drama with their appaling slackness of mind are the exact same people who are not interested in any exclusion criteria, because they correctly suspect that it would render themselves obsolete as "contributors". So they spend time and effort to destroy any leftover notion of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia because they are unwilling to be convinced by anything. They see something they do not understand, and their first impulse is to destroy it. That's where it's at. Everything else is clinical psychotic delusions. User:Dorftrottel 22:33, February 3, 2008
Btw, for those who might not get it: Actually, I'm agreeing with deleting/merging the small articles into Mandalorian or other pages. User:Dorftrottel 22:44, February 3, 2008

Note to closer- Please remember to disregard comments that do not have anything to do with policy. Accusations of destroying wikipedia, and other hysterics, are not arguments that deal with the nominating concerns. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the pages to Mandalorian RogueNinja_talk 01:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Lacks reliable secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. It would also be wonderful if the resulting orphaned non-free images were dealt with quickly. Jay32183 (talk) 03:32, 6 February 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.