Forum:TC:Disastrous Campaign (Kazdan Paratus)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Disastrous Campaign (Kazdan Paratus)
This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep. JangFett (Talk) 01:44, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Disastrous Campaign (Kazdan Paratus) (talk - history - links - logs) and Great battle (Kazdan Paratus) (talk - history - links - logs)

This was tagged for speedy deletion by Trip391, but I'm unsure of whether the community would consider this to be non-notable, since it's a type of article (battle/campaign) that's never been previously discussed on those grounds IIRC. So I'm bringing it to the TC for full discussion instead. Trip391's original deletion reason from the {{Delete}} tag is copied below:

Totally unnecessary article. Every single word of this article was in the Kazdan Paratus article; there is no new/different information in this article. If more details were given on the campaign, and some of its battles or events then sure, but this is completely unnecessary, and contributes nothing to Wookieepedia.

I will withhold my vote until I see what others have to say. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 17:09, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I am adding Great battle (Kazdan Paratus) to this, as it has the same deletion reason and is closely related. —MJ— Comlink 17:29, June 19, 2013 (UTC)

Delete

Keep

  1. I disagree that this contributes nothing. We have a commander, we have a group of forces and all that. And we've kept less. Unidentified resistance force (Drezzi), for example. And a little rewording would solve the problem of it being a copy from the character article. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 17:26, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
  2. I've really never understood this concept, which surfaces on occasion, saying that if a subject (in this case, a military campaign and battle) can be entirely covered in another article that it doesn't deserve an article itself. These are completely separate and independent canonical entities from Kazdan Paratus and should never be buried in that character article without another way of researching these topics. That all of their details might be repeated in whole in Kazdan Paratus is immaterial. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:38, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
  3. That article is, obviously, perfectly valid. The mere fact that we don't know many things about a given subject doesn't make it any less legit. If the Wook had been created back in 1977, the article pertaining to the Clone Wars would have said: "The Clone Wars was a conflict during which Obi-Wan Kenobi fought under the orders of Bail Organa." Would have been short, but still relevant and worthy of an article. --LelalMekha (talk) 17:45, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Per above. —MJ— Comlink 17:49, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
  5. My rule of thumb; if I would call for the article creation during a GAN/FAN review, then I believe its valid. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 17:59, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
  6. I see your points and guess these articles should be kept, but they need some work to be brought up to Wookieepedia standards though. Trip391 (talk) 18:25, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Per everyone above Supreme Emperor (talk) 21:54, June 19, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 17:02, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  9. JangFett (Talk) 17:09, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  10. --Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 17:11, June 25, 2013 (UTC)
  11. I agree completely with Tope. To be completely honest, I don't understand people's obsession with wanting to downsize Wookieepedia. Don't get me wrong. We should have a close eye on what we keep and don't keep; we don't want a bunch of crap just filling up space. But small articles should never, ever be deleted simply because they're seemingly insignificant or because they can be covered in a larger article. If we were to go by that philosophy, then we might as well just have one article on Wookieepedia called "Star Wars" and put all the information into that one article.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 13:24, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
    • Personally, I don't think this is a case of wanting to downsize; I think Trip maybe just got a little overeager and CSD'd this without taking a closer look. I've been guilty of the same overeagerness in the past, what with my attempts to purge all of the unidentifieds and the lightsabers in TCs. Sometimes, it just takes a closer look to see that an article isn't nonsense, it just needs cleanup. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 15:12, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
      • Cade's exactly right. It had nothing to do with the size of the articles at all, but simply from the fact that there is no information on these articles at all; besides barely one sentence in one article. Trip391 (talk) 16:39, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  12. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 15:12, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  13. Ayrehead02 (talk) 23:26, June 26, 2013 (UTC)
  14. These articles would be good as CANs. Commander Code-8 You lost the game! 23:46, June 30, 2013 (UTC)
  15. 501st dogma(talk) 21:03, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

If the article is kept, it will obviously have to be moved to comply with policy. That can be done through the ordinary editing process after the TC is closed, but I don't want to clutter up the move log now with an article that may be deleted. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 17:09, June 19, 2013 (UTC)