Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nubian Design Collective

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 rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nubian Design Collective

This fictitious engineering group garners 7 google hits, only 4 of which are unique. Does this merit inclusion or even so much as a redirect? If yes, why? --GRider\^talk 23:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. If this is considered cruft, then I suggest you start submitting articles for deletion in all the other sci-fi categories. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:53, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Hello Riffsyphon1024 and thank you for your comment! If you are aware of other categories which may contain a vast amount of non-encyclopedic material, please leave me a note on my talk page for consideration! --GRider\^talk 01:00, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That is not my intention. I was just saying, that if you're going to delete all the minor Star Wars stuff, then everything else fictional needs to go too, or else we're not being consistent. The article stays. -- Riffsyphon1024 02:46, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is the worst logic I have ever heard in my life. So if we delete an article on Cantina Band Member with Kloo Horn, we also have to delete Hamlet? And your vote is counted as much as mine. What a system. -R. fiend 17:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • But it's a slippery slope, you start with Cantina band members, then you get to R2-D2, then Hamlet is next... Kappa 23:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • And if you start including articles on Presidents of the US, then you start including Senators, then State Senators, then State Senators' clerks, then the clerk's wife, then the clerk's children, then his unborn child, then each of his individual sperm, so unless we want articles detailing several billion sperm swimming around in some random guy's sack, we shouldn't have a wikipedia at all. The slippery slope works both ways, you see. I find it's best to judge articles on their individual merits, not on what the illogical conclusion of the process could be. -R. fiend 23:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• merge or keep. Why don't you try submitting towns with populations smaller than the average high school? Kappa 01:55, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. More Star Wars fancruft. -R. fiend 01:57, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• weak Keep. Star Wars companies are important, and this one's made some that're pretty important. In any case, it's not acceptable to nominate this many pages all at once.-LtNOWIS 03:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Mercy keep. Those seven google hits serve as an indicator that this is both rare and extremely important info which needs to be preserved for future generations. —RaD Man (talk) 04:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Save The Articles. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:59, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to think RaD Man is being sarcastic here, however his keep vote will still be counted as such, I imagine. -R. fiend 20:14, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It seems you dont need to be treated with a visit by my clue-by-four. You've guessed to the heart of that vote. Delete this is cruft of the least notable kind.  ALKIVAR™ 11:56, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:09, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as minor concept from SW. Radiant! 10:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As far as I can tell this is completely unverifiable. Looking at those google hits, I see absolutely nothing to indicate this is even a real thing. The only page that even gave any context that I could see was a message board in which some fanboy was mentioning some fan fiction he was writing. 4 unique google hits? For a Star Wars thing? since when does 4 pass the google test even for things which aren't completley disproportionately mentioned on the internet? I am really dumbfounded about how many keep votes there are for this. -R. fiend 16:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The nomination didn't mention anything about verifiability. Kappa 18:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That doesn't mean it's not a criterion. Besides, any time something gets 4 unique google hits one has to wonder how verifiable it is, depending on what exactly the hits are. -R. fiend 20:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course it's a criterion, but voters can't be expected to check out every possible reason for deletion, that's the nominator's job. Kappa 23:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • The source is the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Ships. And this now needs to be Transwikied to Star Wars Wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 01:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but I'd like to steal the name. Cruft. Wyss 02:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been transwikied to Wikicities:c:StarWars:Nubian Design Collective. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:50, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:42 Z
• Merge - Personally I would like to see an article called Minor Star Wars companies along the lines of Minor Star Wars organizations and the various Minor characters in Star Wars articles, then we could just merge all the relevent small articles like this one into it. I am willing to create that article if someone can leave me a list of the relevent articles on my talk page (User_talk:Lochaber). Then we can just turn all these little articles into redirects -- Lochaber 19:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Now that this has been tranwikied to the new Star Wars Wiki ("Wookiepedia", I believe some call it) there's no reason for it to stay in wikiepdia. Especailly something so obscure that it only got 7 google hits. I just typed the random letters "gfhjd" into google and got 7 times as many hits. -R. fiend 21:43, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Reply: Thank you for your follow-up, R. fiend. Two questions: At the close of this discussion, should this article redirect to the Wookiepedia? And in your opinion, how many hits should a Star Wars article garner to merit inclusion? --GRider\^talk 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Personally I'm against a redirect to Wookiepedia, as it would be much the same as keeping it in wikipedia. I was also unaware wikipedia allowed for external redirects, but as I am not involved in any of the wikimedia projects outside of this one I admit I know little about how they interact with wikipedia. I believe when we transwiki a word to wiktionary it is no longer an active link from wikipedia, and I see no reason why this should be different. I have no objection to articles on more significant aspects of Star Wars being included here (and my bar for inclusion may be lower than many would imagine) but this doesn't cut it for me. Those people interested in the Nubian Design Collective know it's a Star Wars thing and would know its better to check Wookie- and Wiki- (once word of its existence reached the Star Wars online community, and I certainly expect it will). Those who don't know its a Star Wars thing would most likely expect to find some sort of Nubian design collective. Wookiepedia seems like it will be a great place for Star Wars fans (and I am, in a way, one) to write an in-depth article on the two stormtroopers who were having a personal discussion while Obi-Wan was deactivating the tractor beam, without having to defend it at a VfD every 3 months. As for the second part of the question, well, there are no real hard and fast numbers. I wrote about the google test on its discussion page, though I'm not sure any more than 2 people read it, and I think I should have addressed fiction with a large online following. Maybe I'll go back an add a section. Anyway, I would say anything Star Wars related will be disproportionately over-represented on the web. Though even if that were not true, I know of no example in which 7 hits passes the google test. Perhaps if those hits were strikingly significant, but I think it's been established here that they were not. None of them even said what the collective was. The best one could say is that the test is not relevent in this case, though I'm not convinced that would be true. So how many hits passes? Can't say, but it's more than 4 unique ones. -R. fiend 23:15, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user 24.71.144.159 just deleted the Vfd notice before voting was over. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:46, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even fancruft, but fanfic, and therefore not encyclopedic. RickK 23:52, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.