- 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Kamino
AfDs for this article:
- Kamino ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be a notable fictional topic. Written mostly in-universe with few sources and none that appear to be analyzing the topic from a real world perspective. The "keep" arguments in previous discussions are surprisingly weak, centering on its importance in the fictional Star Wars universe. Topics like this are much better handled by something like Wookiepedia. -- Daniel (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Covered in detail by works such as Inside the Worlds of Star Wars, Attack of the Clones and so passes WP:GNG. Andrew ( talk) 18:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Something like Inside the Worlds of Star Wars is a work of fiction made under licensee from Lucas Films. It does not discuss Kamino from a real world perspective and is not a reliable source from which to write an encyclopedia article. --
Daniel
(talk)
20:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is a secondary source with contributions from a theoretical astrophysicist. It naturally concerns this imaginary world, not the real one because that is our topic. My !vote stands. Andrew ( talk) 07:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- The publisher's summary for the work makes it very clear that it is not independent, stating "Building on the close relationship between DK and Lucasfilm, our creative team has produced a stunning accompaniment to the most recent installment of the Star Wars saga." But even if it was somehow independent, I know that you frequently claim that discussion of fictional topics in books on fictional universes is enough to grant notability, but consensus has consistently disagreed with you.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 07:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Lucasfilm created the original concept and so it is natural and appropriate that they should be consulted. As for consensus, notice that the page has been at AFD before and was kept. And that all the other major worlds of Star Wars are blue links, not red links: Tatooine, Coruscant, Alderaan, Naboo, Hoth, &c. I'm not the one pissing into the wind here. Andrew ( talk) 07:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right, and you'll note that there's been actual independent coverage of Tatooine or Alderaan. You're just pulling your usual arguments here, and they aren't sticking.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 07:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of blogs are of little account. The authorative accounts of the creation of the background in proper books like Inside the Worlds of Star Wars and Star Wars, Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of Attack of the Clones are much better as sources. Andrew ( talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep What's changed since the second time this was nominated for deletion, which was closed as keep? Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect - The arguments given above in favor of keeping give no mention of sources that are independent of the subject and provide any indication of anything outside in-universe notability. For very obvious reasons, when a subject's only sources are the licensed works on the franchise there is an issue with notability.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 06:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. For a fictional element, this one is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. [1] [2] And while I would expect a notable element might be written of in other places... it can be included here as well. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notable within the fiction. Article needs some better sourcing and improvement, but it shouldn't be deleted. kuwabaratheman ( talk) 04:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect for lack of substantive coverage in reliable sources. The proper place for keeping this is Wookieepedia: a Star Wars wiki. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- So you feel an easily sourcable [3] [4] fictional element does not WP:BELONG? Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Verifiable in secondary sources yes, but no great coverage in secondary sources. Much of the article appears to be from the fictional books, primary sources. -- Bejnar ( talk) 08:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Star Wars planets. In-universe fan media and a brief name-drop in a book do not establish sufficient notability for this. Tarc ( talk) 23:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral on deletion but oppose redirect to List of Star Wars planets should it be deleted. Disambiguate with Emperor Saga (birth name Kamino) and multiple Japanese with the surname 神野, which could be read/reasonably misread as Kamino. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There were substantial reasons, where decision was keep in first nomination. Really nothing has changed much. Ireneshih ( talk) 12:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is not how I read the previous Afds. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: As I said above delete and redirect, but I agree with editor 野狼院ひさし that the redirect should be to Emperor Saga, with a dab hatnote about the Star Wars' planet. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Someone redirected Kamino (Star Wars) to Kamino per WP:DISAMBIG. [5] If a redirect is decided, as a fictional element the former should redirect to List of Star Wars planets and, as a personal name, the latter should to Emperor Saga. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Schmidt. It was on 11 June 2007 that EVula moved "Kamino (Star Wars)" to "Kamino" stating that there was no reason to disambiguate the page, as there were no other Kamino articles at the time. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:26, 6 October 2014 (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.
- 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. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Kamino
AfDs for this article:
- Kamino ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be a notable fictional topic. Written mostly in-universe with few sources and none that appear to be analyzing the topic from a real world perspective. The "keep" arguments in previous discussions are surprisingly weak, centering on its importance in the fictional Star Wars universe. Topics like this are much better handled by something like Wookiepedia. -- Daniel (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Covered in detail by works such as Inside the Worlds of Star Wars, Attack of the Clones and so passes WP:GNG. Andrew ( talk) 18:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Something like Inside the Worlds of Star Wars is a work of fiction made under licensee from Lucas Films. It does not discuss Kamino from a real world perspective and is not a reliable source from which to write an encyclopedia article. --
Daniel
(talk)
20:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is a secondary source with contributions from a theoretical astrophysicist. It naturally concerns this imaginary world, not the real one because that is our topic. My !vote stands. Andrew ( talk) 07:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- The publisher's summary for the work makes it very clear that it is not independent, stating "Building on the close relationship between DK and Lucasfilm, our creative team has produced a stunning accompaniment to the most recent installment of the Star Wars saga." But even if it was somehow independent, I know that you frequently claim that discussion of fictional topics in books on fictional universes is enough to grant notability, but consensus has consistently disagreed with you.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 07:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Lucasfilm created the original concept and so it is natural and appropriate that they should be consulted. As for consensus, notice that the page has been at AFD before and was kept. And that all the other major worlds of Star Wars are blue links, not red links: Tatooine, Coruscant, Alderaan, Naboo, Hoth, &c. I'm not the one pissing into the wind here. Andrew ( talk) 07:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right, and you'll note that there's been actual independent coverage of Tatooine or Alderaan. You're just pulling your usual arguments here, and they aren't sticking.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 07:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- A couple of blogs are of little account. The authorative accounts of the creation of the background in proper books like Inside the Worlds of Star Wars and Star Wars, Mythmaking: Behind the Scenes of Attack of the Clones are much better as sources. Andrew ( talk) 17:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep What's changed since the second time this was nominated for deletion, which was closed as keep? Dcfc1988 ( talk) 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete or redirect - The arguments given above in favor of keeping give no mention of sources that are independent of the subject and provide any indication of anything outside in-universe notability. For very obvious reasons, when a subject's only sources are the licensed works on the franchise there is an issue with notability.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 06:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. For a fictional element, this one is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. [1] [2] And while I would expect a notable element might be written of in other places... it can be included here as well. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Notable within the fiction. Article needs some better sourcing and improvement, but it shouldn't be deleted. kuwabaratheman ( talk) 04:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and redirect for lack of substantive coverage in reliable sources. The proper place for keeping this is Wookieepedia: a Star Wars wiki. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- So you feel an easily sourcable [3] [4] fictional element does not WP:BELONG? Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Verifiable in secondary sources yes, but no great coverage in secondary sources. Much of the article appears to be from the fictional books, primary sources. -- Bejnar ( talk) 08:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 22:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Star Wars planets. In-universe fan media and a brief name-drop in a book do not establish sufficient notability for this. Tarc ( talk) 23:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Neutral on deletion but oppose redirect to List of Star Wars planets should it be deleted. Disambiguate with Emperor Saga (birth name Kamino) and multiple Japanese with the surname 神野, which could be read/reasonably misread as Kamino. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 05:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There were substantial reasons, where decision was keep in first nomination. Really nothing has changed much. Ireneshih ( talk) 12:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- That is not how I read the previous Afds. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: As I said above delete and redirect, but I agree with editor 野狼院ひさし that the redirect should be to Emperor Saga, with a dab hatnote about the Star Wars' planet. -- Bejnar ( talk) 16:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Someone redirected Kamino (Star Wars) to Kamino per WP:DISAMBIG. [5] If a redirect is decided, as a fictional element the former should redirect to List of Star Wars planets and, as a personal name, the latter should to Emperor Saga. Schmidt, Michael Q. 08:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Schmidt. It was on 11 June 2007 that EVula moved "Kamino (Star Wars)" to "Kamino" stating that there was no reason to disambiguate the page, as there were no other Kamino articles at the time. -- Bejnar ( talk) 20:26, 6 October 2014 (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.