Forum:TC:Unidentified Mos Eisley woman

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Unidentified Mos Eisley woman

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. —MJ— Training Room 00:47, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Unidentified Mos Eisley woman (talk - history - links - logs)

Hello, all. At the recent ECmoot, this article was up for discussion. The question was brought up of whether this article is actually notable enough to be an article. Arguments were given for both views, and since it was out of the jurisdiction of the EC, it was decided that it would be brought to the Trash Compactor.

Delete

  1. Gal-icon OLIOSTER (talk) 00:37, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:51, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Appears to be nothing more than a random background extra. Unlike those in the cantina, this woman is highly unlikely to ever be mentioned in another source and simply isn't notable. —MJ— Comlink 01:13, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Agreed. She doesn't do anything, and this sets a bad precedent. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 01:30, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Per MJ and Corellian Premier.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 15:22, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
  6. No more notable than any of the extras in this picture. Menkooroo (talk) 15:41, October 13, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:33, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Trip391 (talk) 05:04, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
  9. Ugh. 1358 (Talk) 13:38, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
  10. It at least needs a good picture. Fe Nite (talk) 18:18, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
  11. Should this character appear in another source, the information in the article will be replicated. —Silly Dan (talk) 04:21, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  12. I went back and forth a bit on this one, but this person really didn't do anything at all. If she happens to appear in another source, we can always recreate the article. Supreme Emperor (talk) 04:25, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  13. CC7567 (talk) 14:06, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
  14. dat Cal JangFett (Talk) 13:36, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Keep

  1. As I said in the previous TC for her (Forum:TC:Unnamed Mos Eisley woman), "If we can keep unnamed stormtroopers, we can keep everyone." jSarek (talk) 01:58, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Per jSarek, and all the reason's people voted to keep before. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 02:24, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • In the previous TC, I see the following under "Keep": two votes without reasoning, just a signature (Grae and Acky); one vote with nothing but a tangential comment (Gonk); six (Greyman, Havac, KEJ, Unit 8311, Riff, and Wildyoda) that say "it's canon, therefore keep", which is soundly refuted by Menk above; one (jSarek) who apparently fails to understand the concept of the character actually doing something, which all of our unidentified stormtroopers do and this lady doesn't; and three (QG, Tope, and Ozzel) that say there is no such thing as notability, which modern consensus has previously disagreed with (and I'll point out that one of those three, Tope, has voted "delete" this time around). So explain to me what I'm not understanding here, because right now your comment makes no sense to me. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 05:01, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 02:27, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
  4. She exists, therefore she is.Darth Pickle 2 (talk) 02:28, October 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. DarthRevan1173 Revan Headshot (Long live Lord Revan) 00:37, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Since this was my CA, I have a personal desire to see it stay for selfish reasons, but I can see legitimate reasons on both sides. Thus, I'll be abstaining until a later time. I want to see how others feel about it.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 00:35, October 13, 2013 (UTC)

In reply to MJ so as not to build a big comment thread in the Delete votes: "it's canon, therefore keep" is not soundly refuted by Menk above, as it's a legitimate opinion that every one of those characters SHOULD have an article; I do understand the concept of the character actually doing something, but that, to my knowledge, has never been a stated criterion for keeping or deleting articles on movie extras before; and, as shown in Forum:CT:Notability Policy: In-Universe Subjects, there really IS no such thing as notability as far as our policies are concerned. I'm not sure how I've become the vanguard of "keep" on this, after fighting tooth and nail against articles like this in Forum:TC:Anonymous Cloud City stormtrooper, but every precedent we've built since then says this article ought to stick around. jSarek (talk) 05:47, October 14, 2013 (UTC)

  • 1) Opinion, yes; legitimate, no. The image illustrates just how stupid it would be to have articles on every single one of them, because there's no reasonable way to distinguish them. Thus, "soundly refuted". 2) In fact, it has been used as a criterion (among others) by voters before in previous notability-based TC threads (often in regard to TCW subjects), often on the basis that a character who does something unique that enables them to be uniquely distinguished from other background characters is more likely to be notable enough for an article. 3) The opposers in that CT thread are not saying that there should be no such thing as notability; they are saying that notability should be determined on a case-by-case basis, which is the purpose of this thread: to determine the notability of this article. 4) I was actually replying to JMAS, who is the one that cited every argument from the previous TC, but if you want to respond instead, that's A-OK with me. :) —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 06:39, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • In response to the statement that the unidentified stormtroopers all do something: What did this guy "do" exactly? He go tossed by Chewbacca. That isn't HIM doing anything. That's Chewie doing something. This lady is doing something. She's walked down the street at a fairly significant time in galactic history, when Luke Skywalker is about to leave Tatooine. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 06:47, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
      • That stormtrooper's action are more unique than this lady. The stormtrooper can be uniquely identified by his actions alone, namely flying through the air. It's not something he purposely does, true, but it is something that his body was doing that as far as I can recall, no one else in that scene did. The lady, on the other hand, is just one of many background extras walking the streets, and thus she cannot be uniquely identified by her actions alone; a physical description is necessary as well. So the stormtrooper's "actions" are more unique than that of this lady. —MJ— War Room 20:37, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
    • Oh, and if you would like a breakdown of the other "keep" votes that were applicable to my statement, there was jSareks, as we've already established. Then there is also Quentin Georges, Gonk, Riph, Ozzel and Wild Yoda. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 06:52, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
      • I've already rebutted every one of those above in the voting section, so I invite you to explain what you apparently see as an error in that rebuttal. —MJ— War Room 20:37, October 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • Presence is action for the purposes of "notability" in this Wook. The idea that "Well, they're never going to get referenced/identified" is a nonsense argument as anyone who's had a sideways glance at a TCG will tell you. "Unique action" is also interpretative and doesn't strike me as an overly robust way of determining notability. Thefourdotelipsis (talk) 03:07, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
    • While you're entitled to that opinion, consensus has previously. Several background characters have been deleted in the past on the basis of not doing anything unique. —MJ— Comlink 17:43, October 15, 2013 (UTC)