Forum:TC:Unidentifieds: Mandalorian Ministers

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 keep. 1358 ^(Talk) 09:04, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

Mandalorian Ministers

These four articles are complete carbon copies of one another, and the characters appeared for two seconds in the show. They, like many other articles on similarly one-shot characters, are not notable enough for an article.

• Unidentified New Mandalorian minister (talk - history - links - logs)
• Unidentified New Mandalorian minister 2 (talk - history - links - logs)
• Unidentified New Mandalorian minister 3 (talk - history - links - logs)
• Unidentified New Mandalorian minister 4 (talk - history - links - logs)

Voting

Delete

1. As nominator. I am not picking these articles for any specific reason above the other unidentified characters, I simply decided to pick a point to start with. More TCs will follow. Cade Calrayn 18:40, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
2. JangFett ^(Talk) 18:41, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
3. Seriously, we don't need an article for every unidentified background extra from TCW. Darth Trayus^{(Trayus Academy)} 19:04, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
4. I like to imagine these articles going into some kind of digital mass grave. I probably like it a little too much. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 19:33, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

   Seeing this TC thread made me very happy. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 20:06, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

5. There are limits to notability. These don't even come close. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 20:09, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

1. I enjoy deleting articles as much as the next man, and I understand the growing concern with certain "Unidentified" articles, but I think these articles can be considered to be within the fringes of acceptability. When I'm trying to determine whether or not something deserves an article, I personally ask myself the following questions: a) Does the subject have unique dialogue or otherwise perform some unique action or role that makes it distinguishable? b) Is the subject visually distinguishable from other similar characters? (i.e., unique Jedi characters, as opposed to Unidentified stormtrooper 407 in a crowd of 1000 identical looking and indistinguishable stormtroopers) and c) Does the subject appear in multiple appearances/sources? If the answer to any one of these questions is yes, I believe the article can distinctly stand on its own, mostly on the merit of establishing that it is distinguishable. And in my opinion, these four characters, as minor as they are, are primarily visually distinguishable and also hold a certain unique role as ministers. The problem with unidentified articles lies not in things like this, in my opinion, but in the Unidentified stormtrooper 407s. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:28, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
2. Entirely per Tope. —MJ— _{War Room} Thursday, July 12, 2012, 20:48 UTC
3. I agree completely with Toprawa. Making articles for completely different looking ministers is a lot different than "Unidentified Battle Droid 12375937". Plus, there are only four. And they are all unique. --The Lampshade... (talk) 21:32, July 12, 2012 (UTC)Lamp774
4. Human characters? Oh absolutely. Let's get them a BTS! Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 21:48, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
5. Yes, entirely per all three of Tope's points. If someone was to create an article for every stormtrooper Starkiller has ever killed, then I would say delete the articles. These are different individuals, though, that stand out. Earlier today on the IRC before these TC's were started, I actually stated pretty much Tope's first point. That alone would make these articles notable, not mentioning the other points which are equally true. It's good to delete articles that have gotten way out of hand in the notability section, but there is also a limit to what should be deleted. We are a comprehensive Wiki after all.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 22:32, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
6. My personal way of handling unidentified articles is that if I don't think it should be an article, I don't create it. If it already exists, I generally don't worry about it. If you're planning to do a lot of these TCs, Cade, you've got to understand that we're a wiki that errs on inclusionism. Random battle droids are one thing, but even if an unidentified chararcter from a book is provided with an explicit hair color, we're probably going to vote to keep it. Also, something I see in both of these is saying that some are "carbon-copies" of other articles in the set. That is not a valid issue with the articles. It's not against policy or any rules. If an article hasn't been put up for status and the author has no intention of putting it up for status, why waste time writing it out differently. Really, being a copy isn't even something that can stop it from being a status article, officially. People enforce copy protection with their votes. NaruHina ^Talk 22:58, July 12, 2012 (UTC)
7. ℬiggestℒeo ^{(ℳeeting ℛoom)} 01:48, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
8. 100% per Tope.--Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 13:30, July 13, 2012 (UTC)
9. To my right, a row of Ministers more sinister than ministers. DD97^{Which bear is best?} 04:46, July 17, 2012 (UTC)
10. Menkooroo (talk) 02:31, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
11. "Unidentified" should not automatically mean "non-notable" and "delete"… CC7567 ^(talk) 01:11, July 22, 2012 (UTC)
12. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:50, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
13. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 18:59, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
14. Meh. I suppose these individuals are notable enough to have their own articles. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 20:04, July 31, 2012 (UTC)
15. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 03:36, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
16. Trak Nar ^{Ramble on} 03:38, August 9, 2012 (UTC)
17. Bella'Mia (talk) 03:55, August 9, 2012 (UTC)