Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination)

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, thus a default to keep.

This was a very close call, and some explanation of the rationale is in order and will hopefully be useful going forward. A simple tallying of the !votes shows 10 in favor of deletion and 8 in favor of keeping—a fairly even split as was the case with the first AfD, but with more folks in the delete camp this time around. Obviously what ultimately matters though are the arguments behind the votes. The key issue here is whether this character (who is clearly of some importance in a very notable fictional universe) is notable per WP:FICT. More specifically, the question is whether the character can be discussed using reliable sources to the point where a "real-world context" is established. Delete voters argue that there are no reliable sources since most of the coverage is on fan sites. Many of the keep voters did not engage directly with the question of sourcing, though a couple of users suggested rather marginal sources. The delete arguments here are quite strong, but there do appear to be a handful of (less than ideal) sources (for example this one) that provide a small amount of real-world context.

This article is teetering on the edge of deletion, but I don't see a robust enough consensus for that at this point—particularly given the heavy allowance we seem to have made for Star Wars-related material and the extent to which this article is referenced in other SW articles on Wikipedia (per LtNOWIS). The article remains deeply problematic though in that much of its content is plot summary. Stubbing this down or possibly merging the content elsewhere are options to consider. If sufficient progress is not made in the months ahead in terms of dealing with the sourcing and WP:PLOT issues, then a third trip to RfA would be completely appropriate. Keep voters who insist there is more third-party reliable coverage out there should work with some alacrity to bring such sources into the article. In a sense this close could be considered a final reprieve—if little progress is made on this article in the upcoming months then the third time might indeed prove to be the charm for those seeking deletion. If there is a future AfD on this article, it might be useful to consider Jacen Solo and perhaps other similar articles at the same time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaina Solo

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo (2nd nomination)
Jaina Solo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Still no references, not even for the primary sources, let alone any reliable third-party secondary sources. Actual improvements since the last AfD in January have practically not happened. The people who voted to keep the article have not done any work on it. To this day, there is no assertion of notability, and I have yet to see an explanation on why this article needs to be split from the parent article in the first place; which in turn reflects another, even more serious problem: namely that the creation of this article was done due to a complete lack of effort to write from a real-world perspective. The persistently insufficient style of this article merely follows from that initial flaw. This happens when people count on eventualism to make things better. Eventualism in Star Wars articles means: eventually someone will come along and make the article even more in-universe. At best. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:05, April 21, 2008 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Add at least one single reliable third-party source to verify the character's independent notability (which I couldn't find) into the article, and I promise I'll withdraw the AfD on the spot. Alternatively, tell me why this article should be split off from the parent article, and where this parent article is, and whether or not it is a proper summary style spin-out (probably List of minor Star Wars characters or some such). Dorftrottel (talk) 23:22, April 21, 2008
  • No, those are of course not independent, third-party sources. The novels were all published by Ballantine Books, and both character guide books were published by Ballantine branch Del Rey Books. They are purely commercial tie-in and thus cannot possibly serve to verify any notability. They are basically repackaged content, if you actually bought those books you have been ripped off — I assume you have bought or at least read those books since you seem convinced that the content they contain about Jaina Solo is sufficient for... whatever you believe it's sufficient for, you didn't say that above. What exactly is the content about Jaina Solo in those books? Does it e.g. include real-world information? Dorftrottel (warn) 02:17, April 22, 2008
  • Which ones in particular? (And btw, you didn't answer my questions from above wrt to the character guides you mentioned.) Dorftrottel (warn) 09:00, April 22, 2008
  • Weak keep , but sources are needed here. She seems to be a major character, but no sources are in the article. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. This stuff should not be tolerated. Eusebeus (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please see Wikipedia:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh Pumpkin, stop being so tedious and stop linking to that until you have actually read it - and feel free to check the edit history - and oh you should - while you are at it since you seem to be so keen on that section ;) Also, could you respond to this comment as well please? Eusebeus (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
        • As it states: "Also, this response ["per nom"] should not be used to hide a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position--stating your true position in your own words will assure others that you are not engaging in this deceptive practice." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          You are right that this invalidates the observation that In instances where the nomination includes a well-formulated argument, is extensive in its reasoning and clearly addresses the major issues, expressing simple support per nom may be sufficient. Can you reply to this comment as well please. Eusebeus (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          Sure thing. AfD is not a vote. It doesn't matter that more people support a position if that support doesn't amount to a new argument or a new piece of evidence. There are clearly a large number of people interested in this, so to add another line saying only that you support a nomination is not helpful. It would be like me saying "Keep per --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)". It doesn't add anything to the discussion. Protonk (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Solo_family for lack of reliable sources -- 50% of the article's sources I just deleted as a citation to an unreliable, fan-generated encyclopedia. Something so notable, especially after what was supposed to be a kick-in-the-pants-AfD several months ago, should have more substantiation (and, ideally, out-of-universe substance) behind it. Perhaps these random offspring articles are best conglomerated into the family blurbs. The latter right now aren't that much better, but perhaps the minuscule data on this characters individually can come together to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Major character in about a dozen bestselling novels, and a major young adult series. That fact is self-evident. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's the closest to a valid keep argument in this AfD so far. I still don't agree, but I acknowledge that point. Dorftrottel (canvass) 06:42, April 23, 2008
  • I am not sure how valid a point that is because one still needs to demonstrate per the spinout principle at fiction that it has acquired enough critical reaction to provide for a real-world focus, no? Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • True, that's why I said "closest to". It's mainly in comparison to other arguments. Dorftrottel (canvass) 15:31, April 23, 2008
  • Delete as this article has no real-world content, fails WP:PLOT and contains no real-world evidence of notability. There are no sources to verify its content, which must be classed as original research. There is no consensus to keep this article, which fails all of Wikipedia guidelines, policies which express standards that have community wide consensus. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The article has significance to people in the real world, passes WP:PLOT and contains evidence of notability. Sources have been mentioned to verify its content and there is no evidence of original research. There is no consensus to delete this article, which passes all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • has significance to people in the real world - Where's the cited source to substantiate this? passes WP:PLOT - how so? The article is entirely plot summary of the text she appears in. contains evidence of notability - substantiated by what? Being notable in the EU ≠ being notable in the real world. The Databank article substantiates mattering in-universe, but says nothing about development, critical reaction, merchandising, or any of the other facets of/reactions to fiction that an appropriate treatment of fictional material requires. Sources have been mentioned to verify its content - where are they in the article? Your understanding of reliable sources seems dubious, as the source you added was a fan site blurb that cited a fansite encyclopedia for background information. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
        • This link demonstrates that it has significance to people in the real world. It passes Plot by being organized and having some out of universe information. Being notable in the EU = being notable to people in the real world as thousands of people will be familiar with this character. Your understanding of reliable sources seems dubious as the link to the Wookipedia article shows that a large number of sources can indeed be used to cite this article, but just need to be added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Wikipedia traffic is no way a metric for real-world notability -- it's a metric of Wikipedia traffic. Where are the professional critics commenting on this character's literary significance? development? Where is there a professional review of one of these EU books where Jaina's characterization is a key component? Where is the press release from Hasbro or LucasArts or Ertl indicating the release of a JS toy/game/model in response to the character's popularity? The article being "organized" has nothing to do with WP:PLOT; the only out-of-universe info. are three sentences about appearances -- but, again, nothing beyond "Hey, here she is." And rather than once again take an editor's phrasing and try to turn it around, please take a look at WP:RS -- if Wookieepedia has sources that "can indeed be used" in this article, why aren't they here in this article now? My guess is that it's all just another collection of primary sources and in-universe "encyclopedia"s substantiating gobs of plot summary. I note that two days after User:Dorftrottel's offer to withdraw the AfD, no one has yet cited a source a third-party source to substantiate the character's real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
              • What have you found in your source searches and where have you looked? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Wookieepedia, fan sites and the database article. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • The fan sites demonstrate popularity and Wookieepedia provides a list of sources, while they and the database article may be primary in nature, they are reliable primary sources and the database article can be used for some out of universe information. Are there any Star Wars magazines that can be researched as well, especially ones with online archives? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • Fan sites ≠ notability. The sci-fi.com forums are hugely popular -- producers like Ron Moore post there -- but they aren't notable. Internet phenoms are popular, but few are notable. --EEMIV (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • Fan sites = notability. They may not be the best reliable sources (although some are, such as this one, which typically cites reliable sources). Popularity is a sign of notability. Something that is a "phenomenon" is likely notable and likely to be covered in more and more sources over time, especially because Wikipedia:Notability does not degrade over time. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • WP:N: Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with it. The assertion that "this is in EU, EU is popular, therefore this is notable" doesn't hold water. Find and cite some reliable third-party source that says this character is notable, or that demonstrates notability by discussion criticism, development, merchandising, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Same here + promotional material from the publishing companies. Dorftrottel (criticise) 17:36, April 23, 2008
                  • Would you consider this article a reliable source? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • It would substantiate a sentence along the lines of, "The Jaina Solo character has been merchandised into a Star Wars Miniatures figure." The rest of the blurb there is gameguide trivia.--EEMIV (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                      • But coupled with the primary sources, it adds some out of universe context and is therefore a start. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                        • Given this article's history -- particularly the lack of improvements the nominator pointed out -- I simply don't have faith that letting it linger here under the vague premise of "a start" will yield an appropriate article. Perhaps the best solution would be to entirely delete the plot summary, move that blurb about appearances and that miniature bit to Solo family or one of the myriad List of ______ Star Wars characters. --EEMIV (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
                          • I have plenty of faith, considering all the articles that I personally came across as stubs and that were stubs with no sources for months (even years) and was able to drastically improve in even a few minutes of editing. It only takes one person knowledgeable about Star Wars with access to printed sources that even I don't have to suddenly find an article about a character from a notable franchise and develop it accordingly. I see no "gain" in deleting the article, especially since even in the course of this discussion at least some effort has indeed been undertaken to improve the article. Heck, imagine what we'd accomplish if all the time spent on the AfD was instead spent further looking for sources! Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep a suitable topic for a specialist encyclopedia. Catchpole (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, would you mind elaborating a bit? How is that an argument to keep an article on a topic which has not received any coverage by reliable, third-party sources? Dorftrottel (ask) 15:42, April 23, 2008
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Above it is asserted that this topic appears in specialist encyclopedias. So it is also suitable for Wikipedia. Catchpole (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • (a) No, it is not. Reliable, third-party sources are invariably needed. (b) If you're talking about those tie-in character guides, they're not encyclopedias by any stretch of imagination. So you're in favour of appropriate deletion as far as our core content policies are concerned; everything else is negligible. Dorftrottel (complain) 17:30, April 23, 2008
  • No, I'm in favour of not limiting our coverage because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I fail to see why starwars.com and Star Wars fanzines are not reliable sources for Star Wars related material. Catchpole (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Please assume good faith; I'd guess that most of the folks arguing for deletion are Star Wars fans (the article's on our watchlist from previous editing), and IDONTLIKEIT doesn't apply. True for myself, at least. Starwars.com I think is a fine reliable source in that there is a distinct, professional editorial process to oversee content; what it is hit-or-miss on, however, is providing out-of-universe material (i.e. the Behind the Scenes tab in databank entries) required in articles written about fictional topics. The various Star Wars "encyclopedias" or "Guide to X and X" are encyclopedic in name only; in practice, they are simply a regurgitation of plot detail and lack, again, the necessary out-of-universe perspective. It's a shame the SW "guide" publishers didn't do what Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach did with the TNG Technical Manual and provide out-of-uninverse footnotes. An explanation for why fanzines/fan sites do not meet the reliable source guidelines is articulated in this part of Wikipedia policy. --EEMIV (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I find it hard to assume good faith of someone who is blocking and reverting improvements to the article in question. Reliable sources come in all colours of the rainbow, this isn't a black and white issue. Catchpole (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As I've linked here, on your talk page, on my talk page, and in the edit summary: WP:V states that self-published sites -- e.g. fan sites like theforce.net -- are not reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Self-published" refers to people/groups whose barrier to publication is simply money -- as the policy states, "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published." The NYTimes and other *professional* publications maintain professional standards for credentials, content, accountability, and general editorial oversight. Same thing with, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica. --EEMIV (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • That's the journalistic equivalent of Reductio ad Hitlerum. The NYTimes and other professional publications -- i.e. reliable sources -- have also provided hundreds of thousands of quality articles and coverage cited throughout the Wikipedia and countless other projects. There's a whole building dedicated to the press -- even with their Jayson Blair (and let's not forget Steven Glass and Janet Cooke pimples. Regardless, though, this is a stretch of a tangent of a keep argument if ever there were one. If you take exception to the press and other sources being recognized as reliable sources and theforce.net not, then the discussion you need to have is at WT:RS, not here. Change the policy (entirely possible) and my !vote would possibly change. --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • At the same time, something like theforce.net has proven quite reliable as a source for Star Wars material and again, its articles are often sourced to other mainstream outlets. Some "fan" sites have developed a level of respectability by those familiar enough with the subject that they are nearly if not as reliable as published sources. I don't think it's right to dismiss them all outright as some are more reliable than others just as some publications or newspapers are less biased or less notorious for errors than others. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Needless to say, I fully agree. And yes, I am a SW fan too. I just happen to also think that on Wikipedia, the distinction between fan enthusiasm and encyclopedic enthusiasm is non-trivial. Dorftrottel (criticise) 07:15, April 24, 2008
  • 'Comment You would have hoped for some improvement since the last AfD, but since there has been none, a realistic shot of notability is unlikely. Sincerely,--Gavin Collins (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
It's good practice to provide a more specific search term to not give a false impression of the results, since ~90% of the returned results in your query are unrelated. Eusebeus (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as this is just plain fancruft. She is a character only in the Star Wars "expanded universe", not in any of the Star Wars movies, that alone makes her not notable enough for her own article. At best, merge half a paragraph into The Last Command, otherwise delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    Except when it suits you eh? Answering every comment is obnoxious, annoying, a breach of good faith and wikiquette, especially since all you do is repeat ad nauseum the same tired old points. Eusebeus (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    If you believe that, then why do you do it to me and others? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and reference better. Google News recognizes fansites and fanzines as legitimate news. Please take a peek at this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Google might recognize fan sites/zines as "legitimate news," but Wikipedia does not accept them as the kind of reliable, secondary sources required to establish/sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You will have to show me the rule that says that Google News sources are not acceptable sources for Wikipedia if they concern Star Wars characters. Thats a new one for me. Show me the link to the rule. If Google lists it as a news source, its a news source. The rule for Wikipedia is that the magazine or journal or website must have "editorial control". That distinguishes news from homemade fandom. Subject matter is a rule you just made up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Articles are substantiated by reliable sources, and self-published fan sites don't meet the reliable-source criteria. Just as no one would cite "Google Images" for a picture they found online using image search, one does not cite "Google News" as a source. "Google News" is a service that more narrowly focuses users' searches and sites like theforce.net and anakinweb.com (to half of the search results you linked to lead) are still unreliable fan sites regardless of whether one stumbles onto them via Google News, regular Google search, Yahoo, whatever. --EEMIV (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Additionally: another of the links Google News dug up is to a comingsoon.net forum post -- again, Google News spitting it out doesn't automatically lend if reliable-source status. I can't make heads or tails of the French sfmag.net link, but perhaps you can rummage through the remaining links for any material you think can substantiate a claim of the subject's notability or offer an out-of-universe perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • There has to be some kind of sci fi or other sorts of publications that have a realistic chance of having additional sources. If you have any suggestions in that regard, I would be happy to see if I can locate any. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. There is a very excellent article on Wookieepedia for this character. I see this as a marginally notable character from the Star Wars universe. Obviously not completely non-notable due to her being the subject of several books, but at the same time lacking sturdy secondary sources. Trusilver 23:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Which ones exactly? Dorftrottel (vandalise) 07:23, April 24, 2008
  • That would be fine except the criteria for what makes a notable source in Wookieepedia are a great deal murkier than the criteria we have for a reliable source. Trusilver 15:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • keep There are many sources about her. For example she is discussed apparently in "Who's Who in Rogue Squadron" in the 59th volume of Star Wars Insider which is the official magazine of the Star Wars fan club. Another article was in the 57th volume. I also disagree with claims that The Essential Guide to Characters is not sufficiently independent. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • "Who's Who in Rogue Squadron" sounds like an in-universe plot blurb. Anything in these issues offering/substantiating an encyclopedic, out-of-universe treatment? --EEMIV (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't have access to the articles at the moment but I understand they are fairly long. Furthermore, independent commentary in reliable sources is enough generally for starters to have an article. While ideally we want a lot of out of universe commentary the bottom line is that even material that focuses on the universe itself that allows us to avoid original research is good. That's why WP:N is phrased the way it is. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails to assert any notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the subject material. She's certainly been present in quite a few novels, and I'll defer if critical reception is shown, but as it stands, the article should be deleted. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I cannot say any reason why an outright deletion would be wise in this case. Even in a worst case scenario there are certainly merge and redirect without deletion locations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Le Grand Roi, would you mind detailing the logical steps you undertook from your Strong keep above to "well, then at least merge and redirect it instead of deleting"? Dorftrottel (bait) 07:19, April 24, 2008
  • I still believe the article should be kept, which is why I say above "worst case scernario" would be a redirect without deletion. By the way, I sent you an email yesterday. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - after reading it, logic dictates it is a clearly central character. To my knowledge, Wizards of the Coast are independent of Ballantine. The nom is preoccupied with article quality, to whit emphasis on plot, which is not grounds for deletion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that my preoccupations are not grounds for deletion. However, not a single third-party reliable source has been found, and that is. Also, no one has explained why this article should exist as a spin-out. Dorftrottel (troll) 15:25, April 24, 2008
  • You mean this article, to which you did link? As EEMIV correctly pointed out, it would be a suitable primary source to verify a sentence along the lines of "The Jaina Solo character has been merchandised into a Star Wars Miniatures figure." Dorftrottel (criticise) 16:34, April 24, 2008
  • I don't mind notability guidelines and I don't mind honest debate. I do mind the, "nope, can't see any other sources" with eyes shut that seems to occur frequently in these debates. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Super. You just accused me of intellectual dishonesty and of being unable and/or unwilling to recognise and do what's best for the encyclopedia. The best thing is that you did it an either intellectually dishonest or just plain clumsy way. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 22:09, April 24, 2008
  • Weak Delete - The article is poorly written fancruft. I'd switch to keep if the article were actually improved, but despite numerous discussion here on AfD, no one has actually taken up that mantle. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please see WP:ITSCRUFT and also note that edits have indeed been improving the article during the course of the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Humm... you're right about the first one; I won't do that anymore :-)
      • I guess I was in a bad mood. But looking over the history, sources have in fact been removed, and my main contention is that its written in the context of Star Wars and not real life (for lack of a better word). How do we fix this, Le Grand? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • We look at or tap any kind of SciFi or Star Wars magazines that are likely to have articles on this characters. Publications might not have online archives, but as we know Star Wars is covered widely in magazines, which ones can be searched through to find additional sources here? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. What about claims that the article is written from a too in-universe perspective? Half the reason I voted delete. Convince me otherwise! :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Since the discussion began, we added a section on Jaina Solo#Creation and development, but we just need to keep expanding it and if any sci fi or Star Wars publications do come to light that I can search through, I am willing to do so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
              • That's good. What about the in-universe stuff that's already there? Can it be trimmed to essentials? Xavexgoem (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per LtNOWIS. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Unless the prose is changed dramatically to avoid an in-universe perspective, I don't think this article is too salvageable. I would be willing to switch to keep if the article were brought down to a stub and rebuilt primarily from a non-fiction perspective. I realize that is an editorial concern, not WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:V, but the entire article is practically a plot summary. Perhaps the summary portion can be transwikied and the remains can be kept as a stub? Protonk (talk) 18:57, 27 April 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.