Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamino

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Shereth 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamino

[edit]
Kamino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of various plot points from the the Star Wars media articles plot sections, and is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Also 109 News hits for Kamino '"star wars"' and 200,000+ ghits for the same. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So the only thing you found is a book on Technophobia that mentions the work "Kamino", and says nothing else about it. And also posted that it has a bunch of google hits, as any string of numbers or letters does when put into google. You need to establish notability as outlined in the Wikipedia guideline, or this is simply a way of deflecting attention from the actual issue of why this article is being nominated for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um "...by the scientific geniuses of the stormy plaet Kamino. Renowed for their mastery of genetic manipulation , the apolitical Kaminoans -- known as "the Cloners"-- put their science at the service of profit and military objectives. Like many..." (It continues, and discusses Kaminoan biotechs). In addition, there are the secondary sources in Star Wars encyclopedias that you'd expect (non-independent however). I think the term is more than notable. There are plenty of sources. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And like I said, none of them establish any notability for this topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll just disagree and leave it to others to read the cites and form their own opinion. Hobit (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail of a fictional location which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. It's likely that the links provided above contain only passing reference to the planet in the context of articles about the larger work. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the links before commenting what they are "likely" to contain. 96T (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Hobit. Edward321 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uncited, in-universe plot summary. Redirect to appropriate List of Star Wars planets fork page. --EEMIV (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, its about setting, not the plot. Second, articles about aspects of a fiction can be entirely devoted to the fiction itself--the prohibition of in-universe is only applicable to articles written as fan fiction , pretending the whole thing is true. This fiction exists in the real world, and the fiction is what is being discussed. There is no requirement for real-world notability in spin off articles, and there wont be no matter how frequently the same few people say that there is. Third, primary sources are adequate for setting and plot and characters if its a matter of plain description, so the sources are adequate. fourth, those who want to redirect should be saying keep--redirect is a form of keep, and then discussing the matter on the talk page. 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited, and every article must have notability or it shouldn't be on wikipedia. If there is nothing to be said but repeating the plot of various Star Wars stories, then there is no need for this article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes notability is inherited, especially when it's Star Wars for which multiple published encyclopedias exist (see [1]). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is NEVER inherited, that is foundational to a proper understanding of notability. Shakespeare is notable, his socks do not deserve a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and oranges. We're not talking about his socks; we're talking about a location familiar to millions of people that appears in multiple works of fiction that sell millions of copies. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, Abraham Lincoln's hat, recognized by millions, still doesn't deserve an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the first entry at Stovepipe hat#Notable appearances. Also, please note footnote 59 at [2]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand, I mean Lincoln's personal hat, not that type of hat. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A hat is not a planet. You can only say so much about one hat that someone wore, but you can say different things about how a planet is depicted in games versus films versus comics, or how the creators came up with the idea, or how the film makers created the effects, as well as the fictional histories. But for what it is worth, you may want to check out Abe Lincoln's Hat. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kamino isn't a planet either, its a fictional planet. Lets not get ahead of ourselves and give it the same status as Mars. Anyway, a comparison between real-world items such as Shakespeare's socks or Lincoln's hat and fictional concepts doesn't really help the discussion for either keep or delete positions. -- Sabre (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

[edit]
I am sorry to say that your statement is at complete variance with reality, and that no notability of any kind has yet been established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has been by any reasonable standard. And I am still in the process of revising the article. Also, it may be worth noting that the word "Kamino" is also used in a non-Star Wars context as a family name as seen in The Kamino Name in History (Paperback) and "Kamino named ‘most innovative planner’", all the more reason why Kamino should not be redlinked. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what does this have to do with the notability, or lack of, for the subject of *this* article? If you wish to write an article about the family name, or some other usage, then please do so, otherwise this is irrelevant for notability of the subject of this article (which is about the usage in a Star Wars context). --Craw-daddy | T | 09:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Grand, you can work on a two-bullet disambiguation page in user-space and move it over to Kamino once this AfD ends. "Kamino may refer two * A planet in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith * Some quasi-notable guy who won an award." Done and done. --EEMIV (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant the quoted part would essentially be the entirety of the page. The rest of it is dreck that should go away. --EEMIV (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then I made Kamino into a disambugation page (see [3]) and merged the bulk of the Star Wars content to a list. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just copy-and-pasting this content up for deletion, while probably good-faith, is also kind of clueless and a cheap dodge. This content has no encyclopedic value, whether here or in the List of. I'd be fine with trimming this down to the dab., but oppose merging the content to any list. And this kind of attempt to retain cruft is exactly why the edit history for this material should be deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion especially when referring to content with encyclopedic value. After this article is kept, perhaps we should have a "Kamino Camp-Out" to reconcile? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How much coverage by independent secondary sources must be shown before the nom and his buddy give in and stop saying "nuh-uh!" to everyone who disagrees with them? While I'm no fan of simply pointing to policies, I think that everyone here could use a look at WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, WP:ITSNOTABLE, and the discussion articles linked from them such as proof by assertion, which seems to have been used quite often by Judgesurreal and several others in recent deletion discussions. While I'm glad that it's at least remaining civil, this really needs to stop. How many AfDs have I looked at today that degenerated into Hobit and Citrouilles posting source after source while Judgesurreal and EEMIV or Doctorfluffy call every single one non-notable? How many massive discussion trees do you have to fill with long-winded versions of the playground arguement strategy "Nuh-uh!", "uh-huh!" before you guys recognize that there is a problem and it needs to be solved? I'm new here, but Wikipedia is community-driven enough that I'm sure there IS a way to solve this, whether it be arbitration or something else. Gelmax (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC) — Gelmax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I think labeling this user as "single-purpose" is a bit unjustifiable as this user has around two dozen edits to unrelated pages since 20 July. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps the template is poorly named -- but Gelmax certainly has made "few" edits outside this topic. Furthermore, a "new" editor who so rapidly jumps into AfD discussions rarely is actually a "new" user -- this, after all, was a red flag when your friend Allementando began editing. --EEMIV (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It could also be someone who edited with IPs for a while and finally decided to get an account. I edited on IPs for quite some time before I decided I might as well get an account. The red flag for me with Allemantando was having a user name of Killerofcruft initially which just seemed pointed and uncompromising. And yes, if someone had a username of Keeperofcruft, even though I am an inclusionist, I would find that pointed and uncompromising as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, several independent sources have been provided, with the Technophobia book discussing Kamino from an out-of-universe, literary perspective being the best, and I'm sure more will show up in the future. The article could have been much better than it is, but as we all know, the current state of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. 96T (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read this discussion? We need several independent sources WITH CONTENT, and not just content, but enough content to be able to write a whole article, and neither of these concerns are yet addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read the discussion, if I hadn't, I wouldn't comment. In my opinion, there is enough content out there: the Technophobia book has about half a page about Kamino, and there is plenty of useful information in in the Star Wars databank - it is a non-independent source (but it is not a primary source), but it offers lots of useful information, including out-of-universe stuff (in the Behind the scenes section). Also, it took me abouth thirty seconds to find this article, which is another independent source, and I'm sure there is much more to be found. 96T (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All those newspaper sources appear to be mentions done while explaining the plot of the phantom menace film [5][6]. This only shows that film is so notable that newspapers will go over all the details of the plot. Please point at newspapers covering Kamino outside of the context of explaining the plot of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Ídem for the books, they are either guides for Star Wars, or they are extending the plot of the film, so of course they are using the planet, as it's a pivotal plot element on that film. I don't think that those sources show independent notability outside of the film. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:27, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kamino&oldid=1136110931"