Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protocol droid

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 keep.  Sandstein  16:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protocol droid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a compilation of information from the plot sections of various Star Wars media articles in an in-universe way. It is therefore pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle droid

Merge with C-3PO.--S Marshall^Talk 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per S Marshal Umbralcorax (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to C-3PO who is the only remotely notable exemplar. No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Totally in-universe. Edison (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Even ESPN has a reference to it. I'm guessing that means it is probably a part of our culture so deeply ingrained that it is assumed a random person reading a sports article would know what it is. On a similar note we have: [1], [2] That said:

• http://www.gamepro.com/computer/pc/games/strategies/1389.shtml assumes you know what this is
• http://news.google.com/archivesearch?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US236&um=1&tab=wn&q=%22Protocol+droid%22

While many of these uses are "in passing" that's a lot of uses. (92 in news, 92,000 ghits, 79 books (about half of which appear to be independent). Add in the "non-independent" sources (misc. star wars encyclopedias, LEGO games, board games, RPGs, and card games) and I think there is both plenty of evidence of notability and plenty with which to write an article. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in "passing", that means they used the word "protocol droid", not that there is any meaningful coverage, and the rest of what you said is the usual "there might be something somewhere in google!" argument that demonstrates nothing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, try this: http://stars.ign.com/articles/878/878467p1.html. It's a whole article on the topic. This term is so commonly used that we find it in sports articles, network protocol books and the like. We also find definitions and very detailed descriptions and history in (non-independent) encyclopedias (remember, we are a specialized encyclopedia).

All it is is IGN saying their opinion of protocol droids from the series. That is a sentence worth of information at most, and does not warrant a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a 6 page article on protocol droids. Secondary, independent, yota yota. In addition to every thing else this leaves WP:N in the dust. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it is is plot repetition and a few comments on what IGN thinks of the droids, so that's like a one long sentence worth of reliable sources, which is not nearly enough to justify a whole article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—A major character class, notable on its own. I like the IGN article as it gives a lot of great room to expand this article. I went ahead and changed the "See Also" into a Reference and used it to make a few inline citations. The IGN article is just icing. Livitup (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Hobit. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd go into this in detail, but Hobit has said it well enough. If the complaint is that the article is too long, suggest editing on its talk page. Trying to delete articles because they are too detailed is a little counterproductive to an encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer - Please remember to disregard keep votes that have nothing to do with the nominating concerns or wikipedia policy, which is about notability, and as you will see when you look at the articles presented, there is nothign in them to justify a whole article on this subject. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason we have a near snowball keep is because it is notable per Google news and Google books. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per hobit.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The topic has nothing that establishes independent notability from the parent topic, so it doesn't require an article. If the above "sources" somehow establish notability per WP:N, feel free to add them to the article to actually prove it. Please do not try to waste time responding to this comment with the usual totally irrelevant line of discussion you guys like to spam all over the place. TTN (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a discussion editors discuss. If you don't want to discuss, then you should not comment in discussions. In any event, the topic establishes independent notability from the parent topic and as such requires an article. The sources establish notability per WP:N and instead of telling others what to do, you can Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is that you and the others like you do not discuss. You just provide two or three very loose and very indiscriminate links and argue to eternity that they are enough for an article to stand. It obviously isn't enough to establish notability because your overall ratio of fiction articles this method saves is like 15:2 at best. And I'd bet everything that those two end up merged/redirected/deleted soon afterward. TTN (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I only provide discriminate links and discuss them. It is enough to establish notability to any reasonable editor. Unbiased admins and editors are convinced and/or close as keep as have occurred at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable concept within the Star Wars universe that crosses multiple articles, that justifies a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and Merge into C-3PO, although that article needs work (too many lists). Agree with User:TTN, not enough notability to separate from parent topic. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to C-3PO. The topic separate from the most significant example of a protocol droid -- 3PO -- isn't sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's redirectable, then there's no need to delete first. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable, unoriginal fancruft. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per several independently-written and independently-published sources, both documentary and fictional, covering this subject, and per my comments in AfDs on other similar articles on Star Wars elements. Notability is not fame or importance; C-3PO is famous, while protocol droids in general are merely notable, i.e. "worthy of notice", demonstrated by having been significantly "noted" in several independent publications. DHowell (talk) 04:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily satisfies WP:N and WP:V; a major category of character in one of the largest film franchises of all time. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor character type more appropriate to a list or a specialist wiki like Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:54, 15 August 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.