Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederacy of Independent Systems
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 delete. Secret account 21:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Confederacy of Independent Systems
Real-world notability not established, no reliable sources available. User:Dorftrottel 05:22, January 22, 2008 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. No sources, written almost entirely in-universe, no real world notability. TJ Spyke 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Even behind-the-scenes link at starwars.com lacks any meaningful info. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
KeepDeleteKinda unsure now - Therequest for references"references needed" notice on the top of the page only went up two days ago, and googling it returns 30,000 hits. --Explodicle (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)- Comment - "The request for references" has existed since the article's 4 Aug 03 creation; 4.5-year absence of references suggests that this topic is not notable enough to warrant coverage by reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that we should base our assessment of notability on how good our article is? Just because we've done a lousy job referencing something does not mean it not noteworthy. --Explodicle (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- An article that for so long hasn't had references I imagine doesn't have references not through editor laziness but because there are no references out there. The lack of material providing the real-world perspective needed to substantiate an article suggests that this is not a notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a list of appearances, references, and sources from Wookieepedia. --Explodicle (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- All of which is simply source material for the in-universe plot and trivia. Wikipedia is most concerned with the type of information in the "behind the scenes" section -- and all that even Wookieepedia has is trivia and original research, none of it cited to any source material. --EEMIV (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, fair enough. A real shame though, it's notable to me. :-P --Explodicle (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- All of which is simply source material for the in-universe plot and trivia. Wikipedia is most concerned with the type of information in the "behind the scenes" section -- and all that even Wookieepedia has is trivia and original research, none of it cited to any source material. --EEMIV (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Here is a list of appearances, references, and sources from Wookieepedia. --Explodicle (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- An article that for so long hasn't had references I imagine doesn't have references not through editor laziness but because there are no references out there. The lack of material providing the real-world perspective needed to substantiate an article suggests that this is not a notable topic. --EEMIV (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you saying that we should base our assessment of notability on how good our article is? Just because we've done a lousy job referencing something does not mean it not noteworthy. --Explodicle (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - "The request for references" has existed since the article's 4 Aug 03 creation; 4.5-year absence of references suggests that this topic is not notable enough to warrant coverage by reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - There is nothing real-world about the subject, or the article. Maybe transwiki to Wookiepedia? -FrankTobia (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTE and above.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Probably sourceable--deletion is premature.DGG (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. The Confederacy of Independent Systems is a notable fictional organization that appears in various mediums in perhaps the all time most notable fictional universes. Information is easily verified through reliable sources and so references just need to be added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The information here is just plot summary an inappropriate for Wikipedia. In the long history of this article, where are the citations to sources that offer a real-world, out-of-universe perspective? I doubt they're out there; contributors to this article haven't met the burden of proof to establish real-world notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article is entirely appropriate for a non-paper encyclopedia that anyone can edit and can and should just be improved. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would love to keep this article if we could find some links to establish the real-world notability of the CIS. WP:PAPER is not a free pass for inclusion. --Explodicle (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- A real world search engine seems to turn up a lot of results: see here. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The first hits that arise are mostly wikis, fan sites, and excerpts from reviews of game that involve the CIS. The closest thing to a real-world-related hit -- the aforementioned SW.com database entry -- doesn't have sufficient material to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the large number of hits demonstrates that the subject is indeed notable and we can rely on the primary evidence to sustain the article for the time being. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The large number of hits demonstrates no such thing. All it means a lot of fan and review sites mention the CIS. See WP:GOOGLE. --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still have to disagree as it demonstrates widespread fan interest. In any event, the article has been improved over the course of this discussion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fan interest ≠ notability. --EEMIV (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call my parents Star Wars fans, but they're familiar with this fictional organization from having seen the films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Parent familiarity ≠ notability. And while the edits you provided are well-intentioned, they do not offer an assertion of real-world significance. One of the cited sources is an unreliable source (wookieepedia), all another does is assert Dooku's role as leader, and the third substantiates a single, very broad claim. The article is overwhelmingly plot summary and trivia (e.g. list of member worlds, leaders). Where is the critical commentary? Where is the information on development? Where is the information about merchandising or spinoffs or anything else that can make this article make progress toward passing WP:WAF, WP:N? --EEMIV (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the article should be improved further, but the reality is that it can be improved further and deleting it would be premature and unnecessary. If not enough by themselves, then the combination of fan interest and parent familiarity = notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Parent familiarity" is anecdotal evidence and does not contribute towards notability for the purposes of this discussion. --Explodicle (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I typed in the phrase at Amazon.com. Perhaps someone who has one of these books could use it as citation? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Parent familiarity" is anecdotal evidence and does not contribute towards notability for the purposes of this discussion. --Explodicle (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't even need all that. Rocks and Shoals (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) counts as notable because of one single reliable source, and I haven't ever seen "critical commentary, information on development, or information about merchandising or spinoffs or anything else" related to it. If we can find some reliable sources, we should be able to keep the article. Something. Anything. We can end this whole debate hands down with just a couple reliable sources. --Explodicle (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did find a newspaper article that lists the main leaders of the Confederacy of Independent System (see bottom of this page). Also, I came across this article that draws parallels between the Confederacy of Independent Systems and the Confederate states of America versus the Grand Army of the Republic (used both in the American Civil War and in Attack of the Clones). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm... the second one in particular seems like a reliable source that establishes real-world notability. EEMIV, your thoughts? --Explodicle (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, this journal article here also identifies a parallel of "Confederation of Independent Systems = Axis Powers + C.S.A." Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm... the second one in particular seems like a reliable source that establishes real-world notability. EEMIV, your thoughts? --Explodicle (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did find a newspaper article that lists the main leaders of the Confederacy of Independent System (see bottom of this page). Also, I came across this article that draws parallels between the Confederacy of Independent Systems and the Confederate states of America versus the Grand Army of the Republic (used both in the American Civil War and in Attack of the Clones). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the article should be improved further, but the reality is that it can be improved further and deleting it would be premature and unnecessary. If not enough by themselves, then the combination of fan interest and parent familiarity = notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Parent familiarity ≠ notability. And while the edits you provided are well-intentioned, they do not offer an assertion of real-world significance. One of the cited sources is an unreliable source (wookieepedia), all another does is assert Dooku's role as leader, and the third substantiates a single, very broad claim. The article is overwhelmingly plot summary and trivia (e.g. list of member worlds, leaders). Where is the critical commentary? Where is the information on development? Where is the information about merchandising or spinoffs or anything else that can make this article make progress toward passing WP:WAF, WP:N? --EEMIV (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call my parents Star Wars fans, but they're familiar with this fictional organization from having seen the films. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fan interest ≠ notability. --EEMIV (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still have to disagree as it demonstrates widespread fan interest. In any event, the article has been improved over the course of this discussion: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The large number of hits demonstrates no such thing. All it means a lot of fan and review sites mention the CIS. See WP:GOOGLE. --EEMIV (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, the large number of hits demonstrates that the subject is indeed notable and we can rely on the primary evidence to sustain the article for the time being. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The first hits that arise are mostly wikis, fan sites, and excerpts from reviews of game that involve the CIS. The closest thing to a real-world-related hit -- the aforementioned SW.com database entry -- doesn't have sufficient material to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- A real world search engine seems to turn up a lot of results: see here. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would love to keep this article if we could find some links to establish the real-world notability of the CIS. WP:PAPER is not a free pass for inclusion. --Explodicle (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article is entirely appropriate for a non-paper encyclopedia that anyone can edit and can and should just be improved. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The information here is just plot summary an inappropriate for Wikipedia. In the long history of this article, where are the citations to sources that offer a real-world, out-of-universe perspective? I doubt they're out there; contributors to this article haven't met the burden of proof to establish real-world notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Lots of hits on google news. [11], many of which look non-trivial but are behind a pay wall. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per others. Entirely plot summary without real-world context or significance. Notability is not established and it is doubtful reliable sources independent of the subject exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
