Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ssi-Ruuk

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 to delete or merge, default to keep.  Sandstein  16:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ssi-Ruuk

Ssi-Ruuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of various plot points from the the Star Wars media articles plot sections, and is therefore totally duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See also

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twi'lek
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gamorrean

• Merge/redirect to The Truce at Bakura- Umbralcorax (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Totally in-universe. Edison (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep University of Sanbra Guide to Intelligent Life: The Chiss is a clearly secondary source that has significant coverage and is largely independent. Throw in secondary books like Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Characters and Ultimate Alien Anthology: Star Wars Roleplaying Game (The second of which I'd argue is also fairly independent) and you've got some reasonable sources. Plus 12,000+ ghits which are a (weak) indication of notability. Hobit (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You have established nothing by listing book titles, as you have no idea what's in them, if they have a lot of information or none of the type needed to establish notability. Also, you are now attempting to copy Le Grand Roi's tactic of using pointless Google hits as an indication of notability, so please stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, actually google book searches for the terms work (and give context). Further, there are a number of non-RS that cite these books and article and so I have a very good idea what's in them. Follow the links from the Ssi-Ruuk article. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you are supposed to link from here any notable resources you have found, not send people on wild goose chases for content that may/may not exist. Again, if you have anything that proves this articles notability, please show it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with The Truce at Bakura. Protonk (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Entirely in-universe detail and plot tidbits of a fictional species which has not received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into List of Star Wars races (P-T)#Ssi-Ruuk. Ssi-Ruuk#Appearances mentions that the race appears in several novels, not only in The Truce at Bakura, so the universe race article seems to be the better merge target.
  Not notable enough for its own article. --Amalthea^Talk 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• 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. Multiple hits in on topic published reliable sources equals substantial notability and verifiability worthy of an article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Hobit and Le Grand Roi.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Hobit, else Merge to List of Star Wars races (P-T)#Ssi-Ruuk. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirec to List of Star Wars races (P-T)#Ssi-Ruuk. Do not merge; the article has no encyclopedic content cited to reliable sources to merge. --EEMIV (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • As the article has multiple reliable source hits, it has quite high encyclopedic value and therefore no compelling reason has been presented not to preserve the edit history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Get a f***ing clue, Pumpkin -- you need to crack open the texts, not just aver "oh, look, the word appears in print." These "hits" are primary sources or regurgitate plot summary; none offers the foundation for a real-world treatment or substantiation of a claim of notability. In Star Wars, this race plays a significant role only in Truce at Bakura -- they are mentioned in passing dialog in all the subsequent EU references. No significant third-party coverage of this species exists; the topic does not meet the notability requirements and there are no sources to offer an appropriate, real-world, out-of-universe (i.e. appropriate for Wikipedia) article. --EEMIV (talk) 04:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
      • They are multiple references in reliable sources as part of a major franchise. Just because they aren't notale to you, does not make them not notable. Dismissing these sources is just dishonest. They are notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia and certainly sufficiently verifiable. Because you don't want to work on this article or don't care about is not a reason why the rest of the community can't or shouldn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
        • The are not "significant coverage" that do not inherit notability from the notable franchise (no, please don't quote that asinine diff from the Al Gore III AfD). It is instead dishonest (or a symptom of ongoing helpless myopia) that you fail to recognize in-universe Star Wars guides that merely label themselves as "encyclopedias" but are instead an amalgamation of plot summary as being reliable, third-party sources offering significant coverage. The community has since 29 June 05 worked on this article; I'd call that ample time to assert notability and cite third-party sources. (No, please don't link to that "no deadline" thing). --EEMIV (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
          • These sources assert sufficient enough notability for inclusion on Wikipedia by any reasonable standard. I base my arguments only on what is reasonable and consistent with logical encyclopedic tradition. Since 2005, these editors have apparently thought it worthwhile to volunteer their time to work on this page and by assuming good faith, they must have done so because they believed the article appropriate for Wikipedia. The article also gets over 2,000 views a month. If that many editors and readers believe the article worthwhile and we know from the sources we do have that it has multiple references in published books and is therefore not a hoax or libelous, then it doesn't matter if a mere four editors in some five day discussion suddenly feel the article must be deleted as meeting their intepretation of notability when the larger community clearly disagrees and beleives this kind of content has a valid place here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep significant plot elements in major fiction are notable, and if they occur in more than one pace, they warrant an article of their own. There's no need to merge or redirect. DGG (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per hobit. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; having sources in the article would help a lot in evaluating notability, but it appears this race plays a role of some significance in the franchise and there is enough to say about it to warrant a separate article. Everyking (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." Nothing in that definition excludes so-called "regurgitation of plot summary" nor "in-universe Star Wars guides that merely label themselves as 'encyclopedias'", if that is indeed what the sources are. In addition, multiple fictional sources addressing a particular plot element is also significant coverage; authorized fictional sources are certainly reliable sources about the plot elements contained within them. Our guidelines ask us to present the in-universe information in an out-of-universe context; but nothing requires that the sources must present information in an out-of-universe context. DHowell (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable outside the SW universe. More suitable for a specialist wiki such as Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, unorgiginally researched fancruft, just like all the other articles about aliens that have come up recently. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:05, 15 August 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.