Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Count Dooku

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. Secret ^account 19:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Count Dooku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this character meets the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. There are only two sources in the entire article. All of the information on that article is probably WP:OR and gained by watching the movies he appeared in. There would be very few reliable sources to cover his whole life story except for Star Wars wikis, which are not WP:RS. Nathan121212 (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:DONTBITE, I will only say, Christopher Lee is such a huge draw that he can get the New York Times to talk seriously about essentially, a comic book character. And because it is the New York Times, they go to it with great dispatch, and do not just talk about Christopher Lee, so let us not hear any waffling about "notability is not inherited", please. Anarchangel (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• At most, redirect to list of characters. --EEMIV (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A major Star Wars character not notable? What nonsense. Andrew (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Wikipedia is not a fansite. So the article about a fiction character should have a chapter in which the reception of the character is discussed based on reliable sources.Otherwise it should be merge or redirect to a list.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. That New York Times article mention Count Dooku in the first paragraph and then launches into a retrospective of the actor's career. It's an interesting read, but there's virtually nothing to say about Count Dooku. Empire magazine did a bit of a spotlight. But this seems mostly to be inherited notability. Can anyone actually demonstrate notability without resorting to WP:ITSNOTABLE or WP:ILIKEIT? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing wrong with the NYT but it is easy to find more such as unique insight into the character of Count Dooku. As easy as A, B, C... Andrew (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What the hell? If you keep up with the personal attacks, I'll take you to WP:ANI. Insinuating that an editor is incompetent does not demonstrate notability of an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Stover's book, used as the major reference in the article, is based on the screenplay by George Lucas (and co-written by him), so is not independent of the character's creator. Notability really isn't inherited, so being played by Christopher Lee does not make Dooku notable in his own right.  Philg88 ^♦talk 11:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a major character in two feature films, 5 seasons (so far) of a significant animated series and numerous comic books including (from memory) a series dedicated to the character and his history. I'm all for deleting insignificant secondary characters but this character's interactions with lead characters defined major plot-lines running across all 6 films to date (Anakin being forced to reveal his feelings to Padme, losing his hand, saving the Emperor and killing Dooku to start his turn to the dark side). Add that the character was portrayed by a living legend of stage and screen and I, personally, don't think notability is a struggle here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the article is as notable as several editors here are trying to assert, would it have not improved in its 12 years of existance? Nathan121212 (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't have to be improved; it just has to be notable. See WP:NEGLECT. (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• And I don't understand your point at all - your link suggests the article has been edited (improved) more than 2200 times since its creation in 2002. It's also viewed 12,000 times a month and those statistics suggest its nomination here has coincidentally coincided with a dip in page views (the opposite of what normally happens). St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My point is, if the subject of the article is so notable, there would be no problem finding sources and there would have been more than one source added in its 12 years and 2,000 edits. Nathan121212 (talk) 07:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah... better take a better look at WP:NOEFFORT, for NinjaRobotPirate has it correct. There is no mandate that a notable topic must be improved, only that it has the WP:POTENTIAL for such. The topic of Count Dooku need not be the focus of any of the sources discussing him, only that what sources do discuss him do so in a more-than-trivial manner. And while a lack of improvement could possibly indicate laziness or inattention on the part of others, such neglect does not equate to non-notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect unless notability proved. It's a commonly-visited article (looked like about 400 visits a day, rounded?), so it seems like a worthwhile redirect (to List of Star Wars characters, I gather? Not the most informative piece, but work with what you've got). That said, Dooku is a fairly major character in a massive franchise. Not saying that guarantees him a place by any means, but it's an indicator we should have a look for any sources. The nominator says we won't find many reliable sources about his fictional history, but that's not all we're looking for -- did the actor win any awards? Did Dooku become a popular character, both in and out of the Star Wars fandom?
  Those sources could very well not exist, and we shouldn't assume they do, but I am hesitant to outright delete this without some searching. Saw some headway into this, with the Empire link, but we'll need more if this is to stand alone. – Bellum (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to an appropriate List of Star Wars characters. He might be portrayed by a great actor, and present in several spinoff media, but we don't cover plot-only articles. We need development or reception information on the character for a proper encyclopedic article. --MASEM (t) 01:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to WP:WAX, but we do have plot-heavy articles on the fictional elements Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Darth Vader, Darth Maul, Ewoks, Millennium Falcon, Death Star, Wookiees, and even Imperial Stormtroopers. Is major villain Count Dooku simply not evil enough? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply None of your articles listed lack verifiable reception information on their subjects.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mace Windu; seemingly notable because the character was portrayed by Samuel L. Jackson. There are worse reasons but his is a comparatively minor character in terms of plot line. Hardly Dooku. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per MASEM. That Christopher Lee, however tall of a Titan he may be, is a major draw is a non-argument, IMO. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 19:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The List of Star Wars characters is a bloated mess. Per WP:SIZE, it is far too large at 146K and it has multiple issues. We would be making matters worse by merging more content into a page that needs splitting. There is no sense in this proposal. Andrew (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it could be split into those appearing only (or almost exclusively) in the prequel trilogy and those appearing only (or almost exclusively) in the sequel; ditto for the Expanded Universe. I don't see how that's relevant to a deletion discussion, as details can be worked out after it, merger or no. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The character is without a doubt notable, but the article likely is poorly developed and without sufficient referencing because so much reader and editor attention goes to the Star Wars wikis that are more informative and detailed.--ɱ (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:clearly notable is not a valid reason for a keep !vote. It still needs reliable sources. Nathan121212 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree, a subject must be notable on its own, rather than only because it is related to someone or something notable. That being said, I think the problem here is a lack of sources proving its notability and therefore should be kept, but edited to include many more reliable sources other than a related Wiki. Abroham1024 (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dooku is in a NY Times article (even one paragraph is notable) and an important character in multiple films.Frmorrison (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Reliable sources are available, but requires weeding them out of the thousands of non-reliable web sources and/or having access to the various books already listed in the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's tough to deny that our coverage of Star Wars is extensive, some might say overly so even compared to other pop-culture topics. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing, these films get plenty of reliable source coverage, and this was a major character. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of what I can find is WP:TRIVCOV and mentioned only because it is an article on Christopher Lee. We need WP:RS. Nathan121212 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Notability is not inherited. Both the series and the actor are quite notable, and there may be sources about either of those where this character is mentioned in some minor fashion. That is not enough to satisfy independent coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it applies undue weight to those trivial mentions of the character. It needs true, real world coverage of the impact that the character has had on the series and popular culture rather than scrounging up the dregs of the internet just to satisfy the idea that because it is a Star Wars character that it must be notable. TTN (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above keepers. BOZ (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: some of the above keeps have been pointed out by me as possibly invalid per WP:clearly notable and WP:TRIVCOV. I hope you aren't keep voting this just becuase they are as WP:MAJORITY is not a valid argument. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2014 (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.