This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:56, September 11, 2013 (UTC)
Since the consensus in the Notability Policy CT seems to be "TC things on a case by case basis," here we go. All of the arguments in favor of the deletion of this kind of article were brought up Malachi here. I'll summarize them:
It's a glorified image caption. The article literally tells the reader nothing that's not apparent from looking at the image.
We don't know if it's intended to be a canonical character. It's an image from an RPG sourcebook; chances are high that it's simply illustrating a potential player-created character or depicting one of many possible outcomes to a player-created RPG scenario. Think this guy. The Legacy Era Campaign Guide includes his image next to a section of text that explicitly states "Feel free to create your own characters that are heirs to the Antilles/Horn/Durron legacies." We don't treat him as a canonical descendent of Wedge; his image is simply used as an idea of what an Antilles descendant might look like should you, the player, choose to create one and use him in your campaign. Is the Kel Dor Sith Lord any different? No, not at all. To explicitly quote Malachi: "There's no proof that these are actual events that occurred in the Star Wars universe." Most of the time they're just illustrations used to represent Force powers. Should we create articles for these two guys?
Nobody will ever search for this ever. Articles like this exist for our benefit only; more specifically, so that we can write more CAs (not calling anybody out here; I've been as guilty of it as anybody in the past). They have zero utility.
Let this TC set a precedent whether it passes or fails. Menkooroo (talk) 00:46, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
The article is one overblown description of an image. JangFett(Talk) 02:27, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately this already looks like a lost cause, but HELL YES!!1 Why bother working on actual, useful articles when you can can browse a sourcebook/card game image category, pick one you like, describe it and have a status article. Points 1-3 are all equally valid: this article doesn't exist for wiki readers, it exists for wiki editors so that the "no standards" rule can remain in place. Also, if the book doesn't specify him as a Sith, it contains speculation. LOST-Malachi (talk) 04:45, August 26, 2013 (UTC)) (Vote struck per policy: User is banned -- JangFett(Talk) 21:58, September 9, 2013 (UTC))
Per Menk and Malachi. Also, voting to keep stuff simply because "it's interesting" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my four and a half years on Wookieepedia. The scary thing is that it's becoming more common, and that sickens me. —MJ—Comlink 06:27, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
That would be assuming Mauser's CT passes, and considering the current consensus it doesn't seem to be heading that way. Winterz (talk) 01:32, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not the CT passes is irrelevant --- this is brought on by the assumption that the CT won't pass, in which case we need to determine things on a case-by-case basis. Menkooroo (talk) 03:23, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant considering how you've picked up points from it and you'll have to consider how these points aren't even being approved by the majority of the community in the CT. But rest assured, those are not the only reasons why I'm voting to keep this baby up. Winterz (talk) 14:30, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Why? I don't want to sound like a dick, but I'd really like to see reasons given for votes, by everybody. I won't lose any sleep if this passes, but do you actually have a reason behind your vote? Can you refute point #2 above? Menkooroo (talk) 03:29, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
I guess I see the side of caution as keeping the article, not the other way around, you already admitted below that you didn't have much evidence to go on.--Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 03:35, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I'm uncomfortable with the idea of hyperinclusionism based on conjecture being treated as the side of caution. It opens the door to this Jedi getting an article and all. But anyway, thanks for responding calmly to my overreaction. Menkooroo (talk) 03:39, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
That's a completely different situation, for a number of reasons. Those are named canonical things and not conjecturally-titled characters that probably aren't even intended to be canonical --- nobody is going to argue that named things shouldn't receive articles. They're also derived from text rather than from an image. We can't post the original text on the wiki, but we could still have that image without a useless accompanying article. Apples and oranges. Menkooroo (talk) 03:28, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Can we be 100% certain that nobody will ever search for this article? Or that nobody will find it interesting? No. Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
What about point #2? That's the crux of my proposal. If you can't refute #2, then you shouldn't vote keep. Menkooroo (talk) 03:23, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Just curious, do you have any hard evidence to say that they are not canonical?--Exiled Jedi(Greetings) 03:29, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
No, hence my repeated uses of "we don't know" and "probably." I'm arguing that we should err on the side of caution. If we don't, then there's precedent for creating articles for these guys and this guy. Do we really want to go down the "anything in any image is canon" route? Menkooroo (talk) 03:31, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Unless you have concrete proof that they are non canon, I feel we should keep them. Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:36, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Per Supreme, it is definitely interesting. Trip391 (talk) 03:45, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I drag my weary bones to another hard-core discussion on deleting a small article. Seriously. Why do we have to have this like every single day? Already, then, let's get to it. I have said it many times before, so I guess it needs repeating once more. First off, since when did Wookieepedia become a site where we decide what we have and don't have based on the size and content of the article? Much of the canon, even some of the major canon, we have today would not be here had it not been for someone (an author, director, Leland Chee, a Wookieepedian, perhaps) taking note of the little things. Be honest with yourselves, what makes Star Wars such a great and wonderful universe to play in? One of the major things is because of the little attention to detail that so many people (including volunteers such as Wookieepedians) put into the Star Wars universe. What if the article does cover little more than an image? So what? It is pertinent information that needs to be here.
Secondly, "...chances are high..." What? So, now we're also running Wookieepedia on basis of chance? This guy was included in official material. If he's official, why do we have to base our arguments on luck about whether he's canon or not?
Thirdly, and lastly, "Nobody will ever search for this ever." That right there is the sickest, laziest, most disgusting statement I have ever heard on Wookieepedia in my entire time of my being here. And trust me, I've heard a lot of lazy, sick, disgusting stuff. To decide an article's fate on the idea that people won't look at it? Do you know everyone in the world? Do you know what they're all thinking? Do you know how many people use the Jedi Academy Training Manual? You don't? Then please do not say this again in reference to deleting an article. No one knows what people will and won't look up. As for me, one of the main reasons why I love Star Wars is because of the tiny, seemingly insignificant things in Star Wars. As I said before, I think many people love it for the same reason, and they come to Wookieepedia expecting us to have everything, not just what we deem to be "major." Also, this excuse smacks with laziness by saying that we should only spend our time on "important" stuff. First off, who is going to be given the all-powerful right to decide what is and isn't important? This is a voluntary wiki. The people that work here don't get paid for it. If they want to work on a small article, why should they be criticized and dragged through the mud? The details are the most important part of any project, even a wiki.
So, Menkooroo, since you seem set on arguing with everyone who votes, I shall be waiting for you to give your rebuttal for my vote.—Cal Jedi(Personal Comm Channel) 13:47, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Bahahahahaha. Cal, you are adorable. Just adorable. As for the personal attack, see your talk page. Menkooroo (talk) 13:53, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
I have searched info based solely on RPG book illustrations. Not this particular guy, but several others.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 14:15, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Reason 2 for deletion is dangerous, very dangerous. Since when do we doubt the canonicity of illustrations in official Star Wars sources? ~Savage 15:29, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
I see RPG sourcebooks as an exception. The image of the Kel Dor is used to illustrate a described Force power, and I have a hard time believing that those kinds of images are intended to be anything more than an example of a potential player-created character using a Force power. If all illustrations in official SW sources were canon, then we could create articles on these guys. I know I've mentioned that several times, but I think it bears repeating. Menkooroo (talk) 15:34, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
I think it's incumbent on us to assume that what we see is canon unless told otherwise. That's been our policy for as long as I can remember, and I don't think RPGs need to be treated any differently due to the possibility that the image isn't supposed to represent a real event. I mean, RPG sourcebooks are full of illustrations. The old West End planet guides had tons of them, and we've never doubted their canonicity. I just don't see why illustrations of Force powers or alien species or whatever should be treated any differently. ~Savage 15:40, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
I thought more about this, and I wanted to add a bit to explain why disregarding RPG illustrations as canonical is problematic on several levels. Take the example of the Ossan species. There has only ever been one image published of the Ossan species, and that was in a West End Games sourcebook, Galaxy Guide 4: Alien Races. That image supplies gobs of information that the text accompanying it does not about the appearance of the Ossans: they have four-fingered hands, for instance. Not only that, its inclusion in the article is key to demonstrating to our readers what an Ossan looks like. However, by the logic I think you're proposing, we can't assume it's an actual Ossan, since it might just represent a potential player character of that species. I understand the tendency to reservation, but by barring the illustration on these grounds, I feel we do more harm than good to the article and the Wook as a whole. It's in our reader's interest to assume such illustrations are canonical unless we are told otherwise in some official source, in my opinion. Whether that particular Ossan needs his own article (Unidentified Ossan (spear)) or whatever, is another question. But visual-ID only characters are still canonical characters as far as I can tell. ~Savage 19:27, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
The images itself are perfectly canonical, both Ossan and the Kel Dor. However, Unidentified Ossan (spear) is simply redundant, just as the article on Kel Dor in question. Don't play Captain Obvious to me and make a caption into an article, tell me something I don't know from glancing at the image. And if you can't, what's the point of you? LOST-Malachi (talk) 20:55, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
So by looking at the picture, you immediatly determined that he was a Sith Lord eh? Anyway, just wanted to point out that these discussions are more welcome in the respective section just below. Winterz (talk) 23:48, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Whom are you addressing? I assumed no such thing. If there's assumptions being made in the article, fix them. Whether the picture is canonical or not is what I was referring to. ~Savage 02:19, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
I was clearly not addressing you, Savage. Winterz (talk) 02:37, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
Wookieepedia's Deletion policy is simple... Notability of an article is determined via the Google test. Articles failing this test (usually fanon) are deleted.
The only pages the search returns are those of Wookieepedia pages, or derivatives from it. Since it fails the test, it can and should be deleted outright. After all, there is a current working policy and unless it is changed by a community vote, it should be upheld. LOST-Malachi (talk) 04:45, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
Again, to avoid clogging voting section with comments. What I'm saying is that yes, we cannot assume to treat every RPG sourcebook illustation as a separate character. Why? Because RPG adventures are player action-driven and more importantly star entirely player-crated "spacers". In other words, these pictures illustrate a general idea of an event and not something that definitely happened, much like this or this. A demonstration of something that may or may not happen in your RPG campaign, nothing more.
In fact, I could probably give this dude a weak keep, because the caption in the book does identify him as Sith Lord, providing additional information to go with the picture (yes, I just checked). But if that's the criteria to keep, I'd like to see other articles such as this go, because there is literally, definitely no information available about the subject whatsoever apart from picture. See, I could live with the line being drawn not where I want it, as long as the line is drawn somewhere. LOST-Malachi (talk) 09:25, August 27, 2013 (UTC)
The Google test part needs to be rethought, if not eliminated altogether. Google over the last year or so has changed its search algorithms or whatever, so basically that standard is obsolete. - JMASHey, it's me! 19:08, September 7, 2013 (UTC)