Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mas Amedda

:{{la|Mas Amedda}} ([{{fullurl:Mas Amedda|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mas Amedda}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No citations to reliable sources, no assertion of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable fictional character. Terraxos (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect if viable to the wookiepedia article otherwise delete Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirects to other wikis aren't possible. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, already on Wookieepedia which is the only appropriate location for it. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable fictional character covered in reliable sources [http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Mas+Amedda with appearances in toys and published books]. Just because Wookieepedia has an article does not mean we should not have one. Britannica has an [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9064130/Betsy-Ross article] on Betsy Ross, but that doesn't mean we should not have an article on her, because the information can be found elsewhere. If we approached articles in such a fashion, we would have no need for any articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• You missed the key word in Stifle's delete rationale: "appropriate." Betsy Ross is an appropriate topic here because she was an actual person with real-world cultural influence and the topic of scholarly discussion. Mas Amedda is none of those; there are no reliable sources to provide an appropriate scholarly treatment of this character. --EEMIV (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Mas Amedda is also an appropriate topic here because he exists in toys, on films, etc. i.e. in real world media with interest to people in the real world and as part of the one of the most significant modern cultural influences. There are plenty of reliable sources for an article on a character such as this one on Wikipedia. Plus, notice how many sources the Betsy Ross article did NOT have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betsy_Ross&oldid=199130169 prior] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betsy_Ross&oldid=199284563 my efforts] to add sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Something that simply "exists" is not sufficient grounds to create or retain an article. Where is the substantiation from third-party sources substantiating your claim that there is "interest to people in the real world"? Being part of Star Wars does not make the topic notable; notability is not inherited. Where are these "plenty of reliable sources" -- Google clearly hasn't been useful to you in finding any sort of real-world information on development, critical response, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Something that exists in one the most notable franchises in history is sufficient grounds to create or retain an article, especially when the character is not just in movies, but even has a toy. Unless if we have exhausted all toy magazines and all sci fi/Star Wars magazines, we cannot decree that sources absolutely do not exist. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Gore_III_%288th_nomination%29&diff=193037477&oldid=193034516 Notability is inherited], Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• I can provide links just as easily as you can -- how about Notability is NOT inherited? Your apparent zeal to keep every single bit that encroaches onto Wikipedia that *might* have a source needs to be tempered by, say, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Or how about actual policy calling for reliable sources? The notion that we should exhaust *every* avenue is itself exhausting -- if the sources aren't at hand and in the article, then the article should go. I guess we disagree on the potential for there being sources -- my familiarity with Star Wars and its press coverage suggests that there's nothing out there about this character. Ultimately, the burden of proof is on you and other keep-voters to find sources that establish this character's notability and that substantiate the various in- and out-of-universe claims -- so, find them. --EEMIV (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oddly enough, the "inherited" shortcut cites "Delete UNESCO can not be notable because it's the UN which is notable, and notability is not inherited." as an example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and moreover notes "the notabilty guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability". There's nothing indiscriminate here either. Actual policy calls for reliable sources, which have been added. There's no reason for the article to go and my familiarity with Star Wars is that there is sufficient sources for an article on Wikipedia and there are within reason even more sources than those I found in a mere day of searching. AfD is not a vote. I argue to keep, not vote. The burden of proof is on all of us. Deletion policy actually encourages those nominating and agruing to delete to make a serious effort to find sources and improve the article as well, for deletion is generally a last resort. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability through reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic. Mere appearances in published media and having toys doesn't really mean anything when there's no critical reception or coverage of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• The character gets sufficient [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mas+Amedda hits] that can be used to provide critical reception. I have already begun to improve the article from its [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mas_Amedda&oldid=209109761 nominated] version versus its [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mas_Amedda&oldid=209714768 current] version. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yeah, not a single one of the top hits reflects critical reception. Wookieepedia, a MySpace page, discussion forums, fan sites -- most of those hits wouldn't even suffice as reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• What about published magazines? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable minor character. No significant coverage of the character himself. Topic covered fully on other sites. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 20:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• As has been indicated, the character has been significantly covered in many media and if we used an argument that topics are sufficiently covered on other sites, we would have no articles at all as everything we cover is covered somewhere. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - if there is a toyline there will be independent commentary. The list of characters articles is too long for a merge, and I am sure there have been independent books covering the subject in sufficient detail to cover this character, as this is Star Wars...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable character from major franchise, article has proper sources for verification. GlassCobra 03:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, no real-world significance, and Wikipedia is not a fansite. Eusebeus (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep First of all, a major character in a major fiction. Second, sufficient references to specific discussion. Third, not exclusively in-universe. DGG (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep, enough sources on the character to have an article, it seems. Plus, the argument of it being covered elsewhere is invalid, if anything wouldn't something being covered somewhere show encyclopedic merit? Wizardman 14:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

: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.