Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaina Solo

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, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaina Solo

Violates WP:FICT: written almost entirely in in-universe style, with zero evidence of real-world notability. Arguably, there's nothing here which could be called a reliable source either. Terraxos (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another NN Star Wars character. There's a fine in-depth article at Wookiepedia, where it appropriately belongs. Incidentally, the Wookieepedia article is better referenced and even contains some real-world information, though still not enough to have Wikipedia host it. User:Dorftrottel 05:03, January 22, 2008

Delete per nom and Dorftrottel. It belongs at Wookipedia, not here. - 52 Pickup ^(deal) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, major character in best-selling series of novels and comics. I suspect sources exist but are hard to find due to prevalence of fan sites. Barring keep, should at least be merged into List of minor Star Wars characters rather than deleted outright. Same as with Jacen Solo. Powers ^T 19:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are no reliable, third-party sources to establish real-world notability, the material should be removed. User:Dorftrottel 00:42, January 23, 2008
  - Indeed, but the predicate of that conditional is undetermined, in part for the reasons stated above. Powers ^T 02:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In dubio contra reo, I'd say. Speculation on the existence of sources is not the threshold, actual verifiability is. See also Wikipedia:V#Burden of evidence: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." User:Dorftrottel 13:19, January 23, 2008
      - I don't think it says that at all. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." What material are you challenging? Hobit (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character in a major series RogueNinja_talk 00:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you provide any reliable third-party source to prove it, this remains your own private assertion. If the character were actually notable, secondary sources shouldn't be hard to find. User:Dorftrottel 00:40, January 23, 2008
Keep Major characters--or even medium important ones--in the really major works of fiction are notable, and sourceable, for the character will be discussed in every work about the series.DGG (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One single example of a reliable, third-party source should be easy to come up with and would be helpful. So far, not one example of a reliable, third-party source has been provided. "Should be" is pure speculation. User:Dorftrottel 20:17, January 23, 2008
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a majority vote. Or do you have such an example of the character being discussed in a reliable, third-party source, such as DGG suggests should exist? User:Dorftrottel 09:53, January 26, 2008

Delete - No assertion of real-world notability, no information about real-world development, critical response, or anything else that makes for a good Wikipedia article on a fictional topic. Wookieepedia is the place for that. --EEMIV (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HOT!. Seriously, though, the article asserts notability: "eldest child of Han Solo and Leia Organa Solo"--two of modern popular culture's most recognizable fictional characters. Jaina is part of an incredibly notable fictional universe that includes movies, games, comics, etc. And as long as reliable sources exist even if they are predominantly primary, than the article is encyclopedic. Keep in mind when you look at old copies of the PAPER encyclopedias set up during the Enlightenment or even some articles in Britannica today, scholarly encyclopedists recognize that a topic can be notable and worthwhile to cover even if there is not an overabundance of published dissertations on the topic. An encyclopedia is about being a reference and collection of human knowledge. Yes, sources matter, but when secondary sources are not at hand, primary sources will do just fine for the time being. Finally, it is good that there is an article on Wookiepedia, but Wikipedia is much more widely known and we would do our readership a disservice to expect them to go somewhere else if they are already here on Wikipedia doing their research. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But does this character have notability in her own right? Is there any evidence that she has any influence on popular culture? Can you show any of this evidence? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability is not even the primary concern here, although it's correct that notability is not inherited and articles should only ever be split off if the main article (in this case, the book articles) are overlong. Even then, the split-off material must be referenced in its own right. But Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles indirectly addresses the true problem: It's not an encyclopedic article in the first place. "Yes, sources matter, but when secondary sources are not at hand, primary sources will do just fine for the time being." — This couldn't be further from policy and the notion that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Real-world context and according reliable, secondary sources are not some fluffy luxury, they are necessary for each and every single article on Wikipedia. And what speaks against deleting it for now? A more comprehensive version of the "material" is included in the Wookieepedia article, and there's no prejudice against recreating the article iff reliable, third-party sources can finally be found, which may be real soon now. As for "if they are already here on Wikipedia doing their research": This has got to be one of the most hilarious arguments. EVERYTHING that is currently in this ""article"" can be ""researched"" simply by reading the books, or a synopsis easily found via <10 seconds of googling. User:Dorftrottel 12:26, January 29, 2008
Merge or delete per nom. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Lenin and McCarthy, please see this suggestion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, the fact that you're not telling that to the others who are voting per in this very discussion is more than telling. User:Dorftrottel 18:14, January 29, 2008
    - Yes, it's telling readers that saying it once in a discussion is sufficient as it would be annoying and redundant if I posted it to every single poster in this discussion. As it is the most recent poster to use that form, it seemed best to post it as a reply to that user as it would thus be mostly likely to be read. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, I see. That makes sense. User:Dorftrottel 12:53, January 30, 2008
Keep. Jaina Solo is a notable character as she plays a major role in the Expanded Universe. Several novels, such as Dark Journey, focus solely on Jaina, and that does make her important. As other users have argued, Wikipedia's notability guideline supports this. Grey Maiden ^talk 14:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See the more specific Wikipedia:FICT#Notable_topics. User:Dorftrottel 16:58, January 29, 2008
Keep There appear to be reasonable sources out there: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US236&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=%22Jaina+Solo&ie=UTF-8. Also, I think "major character, major series" has gained consensus.Hobit (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no. All of the hits only mention Jaina Solo, none specifically discusses the character significantly. User:Dorftrottel 18:20, January 29, 2008
  - Could well be. Many of them looked to be non-trivial, but I didn't look closely and I couldn't get to them all. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More importantly: A "consensus" for an invalid rationale is irrelevant. User:Dorftrottel 18:21, January 29, 2008
  - That I'll disagree with. Consensus can, and does change. This appears to be such an issue. Hobit (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It boils down to a consensus to ignore any encyclopedic standards. User:Dorftrottel 02:11, January 30, 2008
Keep Published information about this character can be found, eg from this Star Wars Encyclopedia that has information on Star Wars characters. Bláthnaid 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, not a third-party source. User:Dorftrottel 02:11, January 30, 2008
  - Why isn't Del Ray Books a third party source? It is owned by Random House, so it looks like a reputable publisher to me. Was the author of that book involved in writing Star Wars novels? (I'm not a fan, so maybe I'm missing something here.) Here are some more potential sources not published by Del Ray: Star Wars: The New Essential Guide to Characters, Star Wars: Essential Guide to Characters (same name, different books). Bláthnaid 12:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is reliable to back up in-universe information, but isn't a third-party as it provides no abstract discussion and real-world context. All such sources are quintessentially tie-in and provide no substantial discussion above the level of narration. See also WP:PSTS. User:Dorftrottel 13:03, January 30, 2008
      - WP:PSTS says that "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." That is what these books are. There is out-of-universe information on Wookieepedia that could be used in this article. Surely there is more secondary information about an important character in such an important franchise? (BTW, I'm unsure about the publisher of the 2nd and 3rd books I mentioned above -- Amazon.co.uk does not say that Del Ray Books is the publisher, but other places say that it is.) Bláthnaid 15:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The Wookieepedia material is itself uncited and speculative original research; no help there. --EEMIV (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right about that; I see now that the source for that section is a fansite. Bláthnaid 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the quality and validity of all the keep rationales, this is so far a clear-cut delete. User:Dorftrottel 02:13, January 30, 2008
Delete per others. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:FICT. Reliable sources independent of the subject do not appear to exist to establish notability or to provide real-world context. Doctorfluffy (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article has no primary or secondary sources, is comprised of plot summary and contains no real-world evidence of notability. Without any sources, this could be classed as original research. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:36, 30 January 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.