The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Title of this and four other articles (i.e. use of "minor") already suggests non- notability of these character; articles themselves do not make an assertion of notability. These articles are entirely plot summary; what few sources they contain are simply primary sources to which plot summaries are cited. In addition to deletion, suggest adding a link to "List of Jedi" article at Wookieepedia to Jedi article. -- EEMeltonIV 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Also nominating for deletion for the same reason: reply
And, as an addendum, another problem with "minor" -- the modifier is non-npov or OR; there are no citations that differentiate or define "minor" from "major." -- EEMeltonIV 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply
(Re)
Jay32183, As an inclusionist here and a historian in real life, I am always disturbed by the mania to get rid of information anywhere. Personally, as a grown-up, I don't give a damn about Jedis, but having stumbled upon this page I gave my opinion and a reason for "keep" which is what is demanded here. There is no good reason to delete it aside from the fact that certain people think it is "non-notable". One person above uses the justification that because the title actually *says* these are "minor characters" that is proof that the article is non-notable. Well, you might want to review
Wiki policy on just this subject : Here, let me save you the trouble of clicking on that link:
"1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice.
2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be listed with short descriptions in a "List of minor characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."
So it seems that if you delete this article you are actually going against Wiki policy. Also, as a historian, I can tell you that no one knows what information is going to be valuable in the future or to anyone else. It is hubris to think that you have some special dispensation to determine the notability or worth of an article, the subject of which is at least firmly entrenched in one current global mythos. How's that? Did I pass this time? lame.
Saudade7 10:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
reply
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 22:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply
Title of this and four other articles (i.e. use of "minor") already suggests non- notability of these character; articles themselves do not make an assertion of notability. These articles are entirely plot summary; what few sources they contain are simply primary sources to which plot summaries are cited. In addition to deletion, suggest adding a link to "List of Jedi" article at Wookieepedia to Jedi article. -- EEMeltonIV 03:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Also nominating for deletion for the same reason: reply
And, as an addendum, another problem with "minor" -- the modifier is non-npov or OR; there are no citations that differentiate or define "minor" from "major." -- EEMeltonIV 21:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC) reply
(Re)
Jay32183, As an inclusionist here and a historian in real life, I am always disturbed by the mania to get rid of information anywhere. Personally, as a grown-up, I don't give a damn about Jedis, but having stumbled upon this page I gave my opinion and a reason for "keep" which is what is demanded here. There is no good reason to delete it aside from the fact that certain people think it is "non-notable". One person above uses the justification that because the title actually *says* these are "minor characters" that is proof that the article is non-notable. Well, you might want to review
Wiki policy on just this subject : Here, let me save you the trouble of clicking on that link:
"1. Major characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice.
2. Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc) in a work of fiction should be listed with short descriptions in a "List of minor characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless either becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice."
So it seems that if you delete this article you are actually going against Wiki policy. Also, as a historian, I can tell you that no one knows what information is going to be valuable in the future or to anyone else. It is hubris to think that you have some special dispensation to determine the notability or worth of an article, the subject of which is at least firmly entrenched in one current global mythos. How's that? Did I pass this time? lame.
Saudade7 10:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
reply