Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wraith Squadron

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 11.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Any subsequent move, redirect, etc. is an editorial matter. Sandstein 17:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wraith Squadron

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a huge repetition of the plot sections of various Star Wars articles plot sections. IT is therefore duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some capacity due to titular nature of book for which reviews exist and which therefore means out of universe context and legitimate search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you have no idea what's in those book articles, so therefore cannot hold them up as evident of notability. (You know this, having been told so a thousand times). Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what's in them. Wraith Squadon is the TITLE of books and as such is a legitimate search term. The key now is to find reviews. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep vote is strange considering you haven't presented any definitive proof of the articles notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The title of a book that is part of a major franchise makes the search term notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when does being a search term necessitate an article? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it's on the paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit and those editors do in fact believe the topic is worth their volunteer time to improve since 2005. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made dozens of articles at one time about my favorite series of novels for young adults, and you know what I did? over time, I consolidated them down, and put them up for deletion. Why? Because they weren't notable, and I had them transferred to a fan wiki I started. So I do sympathize with those who poured themselves into making these articles, but they still do not belong here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why they don't belong here, especially given the sources independent of the topic (i.e. reviews) that provide more than plot details. In other words this article, which is at worst redirectable, should not be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the sources are independent of the topic. "Making of..." media is good for sourcing, but doesn't constitute notability, as it is not independent from the publisher. As it stands, asserts no notability and contains excessive plot details. No prejudice against a redirect to the relevant article. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So significant coverage of the subject itself (apart from mentions of the subject incident to characters or other things). As best I can tell (I don't own the 'making of' book, but I own the other one), the sources refer less to the squadron than to the characters in it (mentionins of the squadron appear to be trivial) Neither a significant element of the star wars universe nor significant outside the start wars universe. This article consists almost entirely of content that violates WP:PLOT and looks like WP:OR (lots of speculation from the point of view of the editor). The subject itself fails WP:GNG and no enacted daughter guideline covers the subject. As for the claim that "titular elements" of fiction are notable, I don't see that in the enacted WP:N or the proposed WP:FICTION. Delete this article. Protonk (talk) 07:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Star Wars: X-wing (book series) - This is and cannot become any more than a large scale plot repetition of the novel series in question. Consequently, it is much better served at most as a redirect towards Star Wars: X-wing (book series). Reiterating the plot of those novels in an in-universe style here with no verifiable real-world information is not in the least bit necessary. I'd like to see the image retained though, I'm sure a place can be found somewhere at Star Wars: X-wing (book series). -- 16:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Given Wraith Squadron (novel), no one has provided any even remotely persuasive reason as to why in the worst case scenario this notable subject would not be redirected there without deleting the edit history, not to mention that it is unoriginal and verifiable research that is notable to a real world audience and meets our notability guidelines even as is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be "unoriginal research" when someone provides reliable, third-party sources to reference using in-line citations. Currently, it is only written based on what someone has read in the series and then collected together into an article - original research. Something does not suddenly become "unoriginal research", or verifiable and notable simply because you say it is without providing clear sources that are substantive in coverage, reliable and third-party. Don't point to your Google search, one quarter of the entries aren't third-party, one quarter relate to entirely different franchises such as StarCraft and Terminator and the remaining half are simply books where the word "wraith" or "squadron" are used (usually the words aren't even together). -- Sabre (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of the novel constitute unoriginal research and substantial coverage for a paperless encyclopedia. It doesn't matter how it is currently written per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. I see nothing hoax esque or libelous in the edit history that necessitates outright deletion. Article could easily be redirected with the edit history intact and we don't need an AfD for that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Produce reviews that provide substantial coverage of the fictional squadron then. Substantial coverage is more than a few sentences in a review. -- Sabre (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; substantial coverage is mentions in reviews of a titular work. Whether you think the fictional concept is valid, Wriath Squadron is the title of a novel and one associated with about as notable of a fictional franchise as there is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for a reliable, independent review to be posted that specifically references the squadron (whether by your definition of "substantial coverage" or the rest of the world's). Your words are empty without sources. I don't dispute any redirection argument, I dispute your assertion that the nominator is wrong when he says it is unverifiable and non-notable original research. -- Sabre (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What have your searches turned up? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of blogs, fan sites and user reviews: nothing reliable. In short: I turned up diddly squat. Hence my AfD comment in favour of deletion or redirection of the article. -- Sabre (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that can be redirected need not have their edit histories deleted. We only do that if there's something potentially legally offensive in the edit histories. People can boldly redirect or better yet have a talk page redirect discussion. This AfD however is unnecessary. Plus, such reviews as this appear on what to some might appear as a fan site, but in actuallity is a respected and reliable site concerning Star Wars. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still nothing in it relating to real-world information on the squadron, regardless of the reliability of the review. The only information is the brief synopsis that most reviews include for context. There's no information on the reception of the fictional squadron. -- Sabre (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough to suggest at worst that the article could be redirected to the one on the novel, i.e. something we don't need an AfD to do. This all is an editorial talk page discussion not AfD worthy. There's no urgent pressing need to redlink the article in question. If editors think that the topic would be best covered in the novel article or that it should be redirected there, that's not a call for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of fictional characters and their roles within the plot; Entirely in-universe information with no real-world content. The squadron itself or its memebrs do not appear to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Using reviews that comment on the characters provides out of universe information. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked to produce reviews that do that, and have not. The one you have posted does not give any real-world information about the squadron or the characters in any measure of substance, only of the book. -- Sabre (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you type in the character names with Wraith Squadron (for example, [1]), sufficient sources come up to demonstrate notability, verfiability, and provide out of universe context. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing nothing but in-universe coverage, references that refer to the book and references could be used to attest to Wedge Antilles notability, but not to the squadron. Google searches alone prove nothing. Once again, I ask you to produce a solid reference that provides real-world information - ie the development of the squadron by the author, or critical reception of the concept by reliable third-party reviews - about the fictional squadron: not the official books that bear its name, not the characters like Antilles whose notability is not in question here and who have significant roles outside of this novel series, and not an open ended Google search or Google Books search with poorly defined parameters with results that you clearly haven't checked through for reliable, secondary and substantive sources. If you (or indeed anyone else who wishes that the article is kept) cannot do that, and continue to state that it is notable without any actual sources to back it up, then this discussion is little more than pointless filibustering. -- Sabre (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look harder. The onus is on those wanting to delete to provide compelling reason that the article in question must be redlinked after five days. Given the existence of the book, I am not seeing any compelling evidence of that. The results of the Google searches are what matters and in those results is sufficient information providing real-world information in terms of third-party comments. The article provides a navigational function to the articles on characters such as Antilles who you indicate is notable. You don't seem to be thoroughly checking through the sources and are just filibustering to get it deleted when there is no convincing evidence that it should be. Multiple appearances in multiple published books equals unquestionable notability whether its using the article for navigational purposes to other articles or as sub or spinoff article of an article on the book. Just as such reviews as this, which comment explicitly on the characters in the book can be used for any out of universe commentary. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Officially published books that are part of the Star Wars franchise are not third-party sources... come back when you can be bothered to comply with WP:V. -- Sabre (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* Which I why I also linked to at least two other reviews by secondary or third parties sources. Please actually read other editors' posts and come back when you can be bothered to comply with WP:V as the burden is indeed on those wanting to delete. Ignoring secondary sources when they have been presented is not a legitimate reason for deletion; it is just bizarre. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first review as already stated has no coverage of the concept of the squadron whatsoever, only of the book and is therefore completely and utterly 100% useless in this discussion. I cannot make that any clearer. The other is perhaps suitable (but not enough on its own), but does not strike one as a particularly reliable source. How do they check their information? Have they been referenced to by other sites that are reliable? Do they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (ie not on those who have misgivings about an article and believe the best course of action is to remove it) "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". On that note, I've had it with this discussion. I can see why so many others have lost their cools with you in AfD, so I'm bailing out of this before I too say something I'm going to regret later. -- Sabre (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these sources have significant enough coverage of the concept of the squadron that when coupled with the NUMEROUS published books we can verify the contents of the article. I cannot make that any clearer. Multiple appearances in multiple books equals notability by any reasoinable standards. These are reliable sources in that they verify the information and we have no reason to doubt what they claim. Even so called accepted reliable sources like The New York Times have proven unreliable (see Jayson Blair). The burden in AfDs is with those trying to delete. We are cataloging human knowledge. That's what encyclopedists do, not decataloging it. We keep and maintain information unless others can show it's a hoax or libelous. No one is showing that this notable and verifiable information is such. These aren't fictional characters I made up and am trying to pass off as an article, but a group that appears in a slew of published books and that is mentioned in multiple reviews of the books and even in a book on the characters. Given the numerous published encyclopedias on Star Wars, we can't deny that aspects of Star Wars are encyclopedic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And move Wraith Squadron (novel) to Wraith Squadron. Taemyr (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can merge the novel information here and just redirect Wraith Squadron (novel) thereby keeping the edit histories intact. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.