Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exar Kun

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exar Kun

The usual. No reliable third-party sources, and none to be found; notability not established; no real-world context at all; development over the last year or so shows that no one would be interested in improving the article to the barest minimum standards, if that were at all possible. dorftrottel (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough third-party sources ([1][2](Free with registration)[3](Free with registration) [4]) exist to keep the article. After I finish casting this !vote, I'll be adding some to the article. And real-world context? According to TheForce.Net, a miniature is being made of him. He's been in video games, so he's had voice actor(s). And as far as no interest being shown in the article, or the article being sloppy? AfD is not Clean-up. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 21:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not Clean-up? What is it, then? dorftrottel (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...pretty much the exact opposite? --Kiz o r 12:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish production? I don't think so. More like cleaning Wikipedia from rubbish. dorftrottel (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AFD: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

An article being poorly-written isn't grounds for deletion. And third-party sources aren't need to verify information in the article. Licensed LucasArts books are, after all, the most sensible place to find facts on a character. None-the-less, the character has been featured in several books and at least one game. In my opinion, that's grounds for notability. Not to mention the sources I provided above. The biggest problem I have with the article is the lack of cited real-world context. Still, this is only reason to improve the article, not delete it. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 22:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vastly original research. The offered references are primary sources, and there's no footnoting. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an article about a fictional character in the well-known Star Wars genre, it would seem that notability is acceptable; some sources are there, at least enough to hold onto the article. JGHowes ^talk - 03:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no reliable, third-party sources. And being a part of Star Wars does not make anything automatically notable in its own right. dorftrottel (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.