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 Redirect to battle droid. JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Techno Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article establishes no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of various Star Wars media, is duplicative of that content, and can be safely deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Once more, a notable plot element in an extremely notable series. Needs better sourcing from the appropriate sources, which are the various parts of the series. Articles such as these serve to make coherent the articles on the series. Not all that many fictional works are appropriate for this sort of detailed treatment but Star Wars is one of them. We should distinguish between the many which are not and the few that are. DGG (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please point toward sources to substantiate claim of real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (i) Star Wars receives well more than its fair share of attention. (ii) What happens with articles like this is that we are going into the direction of mirroring the contextual representation of within the ficional universe, when we strictly shouldn't: We should stick to covering the real-world franchise (in as great detail as verifiable), and only very occasionally split off articles about characters or concepts, when their parent article is becoming too long. Then, and only then, can the threshold of establishing notability for a given article topic in its own right be regarded to be more or less automatically fulfilled because the parent topic is notable. User:Dorftrottel 10:50, February 6, 2008
• Delete Once more, a minor plot element in an extremely notable series. No real-world information cited to reliable sources. Note that SW.com databank citation is to in-universe "The Movies" section rather than behind-the-scenes real-world info. that Wikipedia is interested in -- and no wonder, because even the sw.com site has virtually nothing to say about this topic. I believe the phrase "Techno Union" is used in exactly one line of dialog in the films, and the rest of the TU's role in films and EU is as "set dressing" -- a provider of material for the separatist actions. It's background component of the plot, and even less significant from an out-of-universe perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —--EEMIV (talk) 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to battle droid - trivial media coverage Addhoc (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable in the real world, better off going in Wookieepedia --Sansumaria^t@lk 09:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They already have an article Addhoc (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to battle droid per Addhoc, or delete. Plot elements from no-matter-how notable works of fiction are not exempt from meeting the basic requirements of notability, and they should have a parent article and should only ever be split off from that if it becomes overlong. User:Dorftrottel 14:59, February 2, 2008
• Commentwhether an article would also be suitable in some other wiki is not our concern. The overall subject is notable in the real world, so the question of where to separate out articles is a matter of judgement--editorial judgement about merging or splitting. Considering the extent of our articles on this topic, this one is reasonable. DGG (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. User:Dorftrottel 10:51, February 6, 2008
• Keep. Memorable characters from a notable franchise with appearances in video games, a cartoon, two films, etc. Notable to humans in the real world and verfiable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any substantiation to that claim of notability? Being background/window dressing in whatever media doesn't make them notable. --EEMIV (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Appearances, Sources, and External links section of the article effectively proves notability as do the numerous hits that turn up when one does a search on a real world search engine. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, I am once again not entirely confident about your understanding of what constitutes a third-party source and what does not. Only third-party sources can establish notability and there is none in the article. User:Dorftrottel 10:44, February 6, 2008
        • A wealth of primary sources can also establish notability. Anyway, as the Techno Union is in effect characters, then keep per the injunction. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unless Obi-Wan turns to the camera and says, "The Techno Union is also important in the GFFA and in our galaxy right now," then the notion that there's some assertion of notability in the primary source is ridiculous -- by looking at the primary source and thinking, "Well, there it is, in these various movies and publications; must matter to the real world now," you're conducting original research. The Techno Union is, and the article is about, an organization; the injunction doesn't apply. --EEMIV (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, because eliminating this article will prevent us from improving and maintaing Wikipedia as it is a topic of importance to a decent number of editors and readers. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Someone should turn Wikipedia policies and guidelines into a collectible card game. "I choose you, WP:MOS!" --EEMIV (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to agree with what I think EEMIV is saying, that we should not use IAR in this situation, if only because it is not the least obvious what will in fact improve the encyclopedia. that;s why we have rules to guide us. Nor do we need IAR--we have a clear statement of guidelines that notable aspects of a notable subject are appropriate for subarticles, per summary style; this is one of them. The guideline however do not agree with EEMIVs appeal to the need for what would be truly primary sources, nor his insistence that the sources for notability be in-universe. And what Obi-wan thinks of the matter would appear to be COI :) DGG (talk) 05:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • nor his insistence that the sources for notability be in-universe - I don't know if this is a typo or a misunderstanding -- but I've been trying to say that assertions of notability need to have an out-of-universe connection/footing, which this article lacks. --EEMIV (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the summary style guideline allows us to ignore WP:V, and WP:N. There is a lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Accordingly, this isn't notable and should be redirected or deleted. Addhoc (talk) 12:34, 7 February 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.