Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerec
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. For more information, see AfD talk page. JERRY talk contribs 02:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jerec
Non-notable antagonist who appears in a single game. No assertion of real-world significance and no substantiating secondary sources. Had redirected to that game's article, but User:Dark Kyle objects; bringing here for broader consensus --EEMIV (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just flush this plot summary, pretty please. The page can be recreated later, as a proper article with appropriate secondary sources (which are needed to verify the necessary real-world content that is currently non-existent). User:Dorftrottel 11:35, January 29, 2008
- Delete. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT since it has no real-world context or analysis and notability is not established per WP:FICT. Doctorfluffy (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep and use the external links as inline citations. Character from one of the most notable fictional universes in human history with real-world interest. As the Five Pillars note that Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, we can keep but work to improve such information. The article is also organized well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those external links are both in-universe. The character does not inherit notability from being part of Star Wars. Where is the evidence of real-world (e.g. out-of-universe) interest in this character? --EEMIV (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did a search on a real world search engine and there seems to be interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you look at the actual results? Wikipedia is the first one. The in-universe fan wiki Wookieepedia is next. The sw.com in-universe entry is also in the first 10. The one video game review makes passing reference. Insufficient. --EEMIV (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- They're a start at least. Take this article. Here it is as created a year ago. Notice no sources of any kind. Here it is earlier today (yes, unchanged from July). So, I did a quick search and now look at the article: Local Medical Committee. I found citations for the history and various websites. Of course some of those histories on article for local medical committees. Would you claim them to be primary sources than or in-universe and unreliable? All those links showing the existence of lmcs in the external links section are official websites, but do they not show that if these exist in numerous communities they are obviously notable. No remember, here we have a real-world institution that has been around for decades in multiple communities and its article had zero sources from 2006 until tonight. What if someone claimed "hoax" or "non-notable, article has no sources" and the article was deleted? We need to do what I just did with that article and sift through the results and work with what we can and continue encouraging our readers to help adding sources rather than just outright deleting the articles. I am usually not opposed to merge and redirect's without deleting so that when/if sources are found than the old version of the article is readily available to be sourced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. What some other article does or doesn't have doesn't matter. Editors haven't provided reliable sources for this article in over 2.5 years; the article does not meet Wikipedia's policies for verifiability, nor the guidelines for writing about fiction. It should be deleted. If you also think [[Local Medical Committee] fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements, then nominate that for deletion, too. --EEMIV (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. Local Medical Committees, like Jerec, concerns a notable topic, but it had no references and now does and now has had its notability asserted all in the course of just an hour or so of my efforts in a single night. I am merely encouraging you to help us improve these articles like I did with the LMC article as well rather than to outright want it eradicated. I think Local Medical Committee meets our standards and have found academic sources to prove this, but had I not done so, one could use the same arguments I see in many of these Star Wars discussions about no sources to be found when a little work did find some sources. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, good work -- but Jerec, not the medical article, is up for deletion and still lacks sources. I consider myself enough of a Star Wars fan to be confident that this topic doesn't meet the notability and verifiability requirements, hence the AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, and anyway, I still think you can use the various reviews to serve as secondary sources: [1], [2], [3], etc. This article suggests that a variety of sources exist. Anyway, as I've said before, I am generally not opposed to merges and redirects without deleting so that an old version of the article remains should even better sources be found and the article can than easily be improved accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, good work -- but Jerec, not the medical article, is up for deletion and still lacks sources. I consider myself enough of a Star Wars fan to be confident that this topic doesn't meet the notability and verifiability requirements, hence the AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 04:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- You've missed the point. Local Medical Committees, like Jerec, concerns a notable topic, but it had no references and now does and now has had its notability asserted all in the course of just an hour or so of my efforts in a single night. I am merely encouraging you to help us improve these articles like I did with the LMC article as well rather than to outright want it eradicated. I think Local Medical Committee meets our standards and have found academic sources to prove this, but had I not done so, one could use the same arguments I see in many of these Star Wars discussions about no sources to be found when a little work did find some sources. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. What some other article does or doesn't have doesn't matter. Editors haven't provided reliable sources for this article in over 2.5 years; the article does not meet Wikipedia's policies for verifiability, nor the guidelines for writing about fiction. It should be deleted. If you also think [[Local Medical Committee] fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements, then nominate that for deletion, too. --EEMIV (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep! The Wikipedia needs more articles and I don't see the reason why this article should be deleted. It exists for years. And also other Star Wars characters are created and accepted on Wikipedia. D@rk talk 18:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- They're a start at least. Take this article. Here it is as created a year ago. Notice no sources of any kind. Here it is earlier today (yes, unchanged from July). So, I did a quick search and now look at the article: Local Medical Committee. I found citations for the history and various websites. Of course some of those histories on article for local medical committees. Would you claim them to be primary sources than or in-universe and unreliable? All those links showing the existence of lmcs in the external links section are official websites, but do they not show that if these exist in numerous communities they are obviously notable. No remember, here we have a real-world institution that has been around for decades in multiple communities and its article had zero sources from 2006 until tonight. What if someone claimed "hoax" or "non-notable, article has no sources" and the article was deleted? We need to do what I just did with that article and sift through the results and work with what we can and continue encouraging our readers to help adding sources rather than just outright deleting the articles. I am usually not opposed to merge and redirect's without deleting so that when/if sources are found than the old version of the article is readily available to be sourced. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you look at the actual results? Wikipedia is the first one. The in-universe fan wiki Wookieepedia is next. The sw.com in-universe entry is also in the first 10. The one video game review makes passing reference. Insufficient. --EEMIV (talk) 03:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did a search on a real world search engine and there seems to be interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Those external links are both in-universe. The character does not inherit notability from being part of Star Wars. Where is the evidence of real-world (e.g. out-of-universe) interest in this character? --EEMIV (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I say we keep. RC-0722 communicator/kills 21:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why? --EEMIV (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cuz. He's the main protagonist in JK2. RC-0722 communicator/kills 23:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why? --EEMIV (talk) 22:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete 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.--Gavin Collins (talk) 12:37, 1 February 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.
