Forum:TC:Unidentified Rodian (Razor Crest)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Unidentified Rodian (Razor Crest)

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. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:05, November 20, 2019 (UTC)

Unidentified Rodian (Razor Crest) (history - links - logs - delete - protect)

The Rodian just appears for some seconds, there's nothing that says who he is, no dialogue, he's just frozen in carbonite.--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:25, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

Delete

  1. --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 20:25, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  2. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:26, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  3. Cwedin(talk) 20:27, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  4. Hunter Kahn is totally right that the notability policy needs clarifying and nomination practice is slightly out of step with notability expectations, but this character really isn't notable unless they get a name or some more info. Ayrehead02 (talk) 21:21, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  5. What Ayrehead said! Delete and update the Notability policy page to better reflect current practice. The fact other individuals were captured and delivered to Greel could also be noted on The Mythrol. Toqgers (talk) 21:33, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  6. Per above. Zed42 (talk) 21:44, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  7. --Vitus InfinitusTalk 22:14, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  8. --Lewisr (talk) 22:56, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  9. IFYLOFD (Talk) 02:28, November 13, 2019 (UTC)
  10. Fan26 (Talk) 02:45, November 13, 2019 (UTC)
  11. Imperators II(Talk) 11:07, November 13, 2019 (UTC)
  12. Tommy Imperial Emblem Macaroni 13:19, November 13, 2019 (UTC)
  13. Every article we delete that doesn't have a corresponding rationale in the Notability policy is subjective by nature. That's precisely what the Trash compactor is for. This is a good thing, so that the community can decide for itself what is or isn't suitable for Wookieepedia on a case-by-case basis. The absence of a Notability rule for things like this gives us valuable flexibility in our decision-making process, because then we don't get pigeonholed into an imperfect rule set, which is exactly the reason we've never defined any set notability rules for characters (I'd suggest going back through the CT archive and examining these old historical discussions, for those of you new to this game, as there appears to be a few of you). I don't see any reason why this needs to change for an article as insignificant as this one. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 14:23, November 13, 2019 (UTC)
  14. The grandson of Greedo the Elder... DIE! Winterz (talk) 16:15, November 13, 2019 (UTC)
  15. 1358 (Talk) 17:43, November 13, 2019 (UTC)
  16. 01miki10 Open comlink 11:23, November 17, 2019 (UTC)
  17. —spookywillowwtalk 19:43, November 18, 2019 (UTC)
  18. Asithol (talk) 19:52, November 18, 2019 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I created the article. If it warrants deletion, that's fine, but as I said to DarthRuiz30 on his talk page, I've reviewed the Notability policy and see nothing in there that would conclude this article is inappropriate; his objection to it seemed purely subjective. (And if it does warrant deletion, I'd suggest that notability policy needs to be revised to provide a rationale for it.) I've been out of the Wookiepedia-editing game for a little while, but back when I edited regularly articles like this were created all the time, and they seem to still exist (the recently-created Remnant Stormtrooper doesn't seem much more notable than this Rodian, for instance). In fact, back when I would do FAs and GAs, I'd be asked to create articles about subjects no more or less notable than this one just to ensure they were wikilinked. In a comprehensive Star Wars encyclopedia, I don't see the harm in having an article like this one. — Hunter Kahn 20:44, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
    • Just saying this for the record. Remnant Stormtrooper has its own Databank entry, which alone is enough to warrant its own Wookieepedia article, in my opinion. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 21:32, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
      • Understood, though I would argue if you have two characters of equal importance, and one warrants a story just because he has a Databank entry... that means both warrant an article. lol — Hunter Kahn 21:57, November 12, 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • The Rodian is merely a background character and has absolutely no information surrounding him aside from his appearance. The closest notability policy relating to this article, however, is "[a]rticles may only be granted to unidentified battle droids who play a significant plot role or who have significant dialogue." This does not apply to the Rodian in question, and there is nothing within the N.-policy page that clearly state the Wookieepedian official policies on such a background character.
    • And yet, a background character with no information on it whatsoever should not be included in Wookieepedia for it carries no value at all, and certainly not individuals who do not have any distinct features ("distinct" being in-universe/real-world parallels of significance, e.g. some humanoid person donned in samurai gear holding a poster that reads "Elan Sleazebaggano" in Aurebesh). A "Behind the scenes" mention in another relevant article at the most, as it should suffice matters such as a group of background characters dressed like some real-world organisation. Hence, I suggest that Wookieepedia address in its policies such a matter to better clarify any further matters.
  • Returning to the subject of the Rodian; (in my view) the battle droid policy could also be applied to any other character, except the "significant ---" may be substituted with "any information," as reasoned above. Thus, just as an article about a certain individual named unidentified B1 battledroid 14 (Malevolence) with the entry being "this droid, along with 24 others, fired at the Jedi on the general's command...before being sliced in the torso by Kenobi and, in quick succession, the limbs to the left cut by Sky....," may not bear any value to Wookieepedia besides from purely stating their insignificant, short-lived existance, it is in my belief that this article need not have been created in the first place. Yet again, I suggest that the policy should be updated to clarify what types of articles should not be created to avoid such an unfortunate situation. CIS roundel OOM 224 {talk} 21:26, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is no harm in creating such articles to feed the bank of knowledge, but with such trivial matters, one must ask oneself: Does it really matter? Is this valuable information, in any way? Imagine a cascade of information, including topics such as the Ultimate Visual Guide's [[unidentified Human male (Outlander Club level 3, bathing unit 4 [from left])]], "This individual was bathing in the Outlander's Club establishment on the planet of Coruscant in 22 BBY when Jedi SKywalker/Kenobi apprehended the..." --- CIS roundel OOM 224 {talk} 21:38, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
    • The problem with this whole discussion is that it's based on subjectivity, not policy. You ask "Does it really matter? Is this valuable information, in any way?" You obviously would answer no. For me, the answer is yes, because if Wookiepedia claims to be a comprehensive Star Wars encyclopedia, this article is one more entry in covering the entirety of the Star Wars universe. But we're arguing subjectivity when it should be based on policy. Right now, I feel this article doesn't run afoul policy. — Hunter Kahn 22:00, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
  • Policies are built on subjective opinions. It does not run afoul policy, but the policy is not perfect. Hence, the suggested changes to the policy to clarify on article creation. Certainly, you are not wrong, conceptually or by the policies. However, including literally everything would betray the purpose of encyclopedias — to give information. Yes, the stating of "what is" is giving information, but to give information effectively, it is better to make things as simple as possible. Or in other words, to negate what is unnecessary, or what is essentially, uninformationanal, so as not to dilute others. Why such articles are "uninformational" in relation to Wookieepedia is explained above. --- CIS roundel OOM 224 {talk} 22:39, November 12, 2019 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I don't agree with you in regard to this specific article, but I certainly respect the spirit of the encyclopedia and the consensus, which has clearly been established in favor of deletion. :) — Hunter Kahn 02:15, November 13, 2019 (UTC)