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 merge to Jedi. Redirect to Jedi for now. Eventually, it can me merged into another article if this shows as a better choice. Tone 20:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Topic fails to establish notability through significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. It is depicted in a game and several Expanded Universe novels -- but, in those instances, it is merely a plot device/setting; no one in the real world seems to care enough about it to offer the subject encyclopedic coverage. Search engine hits are mostly fan sites and game reviews. Wookieepedia offers multple entries on "Jedi Academy"s, but the focus in this article aligns most with their Jedi Praxeum article, which provides no additional "Behind the Scenes" pointers that might suggest third-party perspectives on the topic. The starwars.com Databank doesn't even have an entry on the topic (at least under Locations or Organizations). This slice of articlespace might better be served as a disambiguation page -- the current content is unencylopedic. --EEMIV (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to a list of locations in Star Wars article. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose merge - The entirety of the content is unencyclopedic, failing to meet WP:RS, WP:WAF. --EEMIV (talk) 04:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject is related to Star Wars makes it notable by default. A merge might be okay too. How would deleting the subject make the encyclopedia better? Use the Force EEMIV. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarification I was half joking with this original statement, not that the article should be kept, but just about everything Star Wars related being notable. It's clear that the subject of this article is very notable (which is why I though tit would be okay to joke), as an investigation of sources and coverage reveals. Because it's been involved in so many games and books, sorting through all the coverage takes some time, but even as page to note all the notable uses of this feature of the Star Wars universe is an encyclopedic helpful and useful improvement. Deleting it would be damaging to the encyclopedia and would eliminate an encyclopedic topic that just needs some editing, trimming, expanding and improving. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "It's clear that the subject of this article is very notable"... I don't think that's clear to everyone. It's not clear to me that it has been the topic of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. What's clear to me is that it's not clear whether this subject is notable. If it were, we wouldn't be discussing it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Lots of notable subjects are discussed at AfD and lots of non-notable subjects. This one is clearly notable. If you're in doubt I suggest you peruse Google News and review the numerous cites and many highly notable manifestations of this subject in popular fiction, movies, and games, all of them discussed in oodles of reliable independent sources, a few of which I've gone ahead and added to the article. If you have any questions about the notability guideline it is based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and further details can be discerned by reviewing the policy page here wp:notability. I hope that helps clear the fog. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked there - what did your Google-fu find that I didn't? All I dug up was a children's "Jedi Academy Day" in the Watertown Daily times. There was also a game review that mentioned the Academy in the byline, but nowhere else. I did, however, find tips on how to lay a "Star Wars virgin." ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, CoM. Still foggy. I've checked, and I'm not seeing it. Since it's "clearly notable" and "highly notable", I guess that just means I'm somehow incompetent to evaluate sources. Oh, well. As for the notability "policy", I helped write it; I know what it says. Thanks. I have yet to see a single source that's actually about the Jedi Academy. Where are the articles about that building? Where has someone made it the subject of their writing? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not inherited. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sources are needed to establish notability, and as this has none... ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Jedi. The Academy itself, as is stated above, is not covered reliably, and is only notable in the realm of Star Wars, and really only when concerning specific Jedi affairs, not the major interests of the public. A small portion of the material may be able to be incorporated there, but for the most part this should just stand as a redirect. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Fortunately there is a Star Wars architecture article, so if the subject isn't kept (as I've recommended above) it can be merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A Jedi Academy was established in Surrey England, another in Romania. It's the setting and part of the name of a very popular and notable video game (that has its own article). I just wrote up a bunch of stuff with newslinks etc. But one of the links was on the spam blacklist so I lost it all. But there are plenty of sources to write a decent article. The massive coverage of the video game jsut means it requires a bit of digging. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The video game and book series have their own articles -- and maybe, as I wrote above, Jedi Academy is better as a dab page to point toward those two products. However, as I explained in my nomination, even in these projects that contain the article's subject, the Jedi Academy is essentially just a window dressing locale for some fights and whatnot. There still is no evidence of significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's also been the setting for a series of notable books The Jedi Academy Trilogy and numerous comics. It's noted in this book [1] on Medieval technology old and new. There are definitely enough sources to establish notability and to improve the article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That source mentions the Academy in passing in a discussion of Dantoonie. It's not about the academy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a bunch of sources. There are lots more. Feel free to add content from them and move them inline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources you added were not attached to any of the claims in the article, nor did you add any substance to the article -- the "sources" seem just to be to links where the subject is mentioned. If you've actually found evidence of the subject's notability -- real-people actually talking about this make-believe building -- then paraphrase or otherwise integrate the information; a "source" without information from it is just another External link, and should be labeled as such. Please revisit these "sources" and either cull information from them, or restore the links under the appropriate EL heading. --EEMIV (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find numerous reliable sources with substantial independent coverage which is the standard to meet notability. That the article needs work isn't in dispute. Now that notability is no longer in question, please withdraw this nomination so I can focus my energies on improving the article and others instead of discussing it. Your help in doing so would be greatly appreciated! Now that I've added the sources it's a lot easier to accomplish the improvements that are needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in no way suggest significant coverage; notability remains unestablilshed -- either through inference from signs of significant coverage, or even a substantiated claim of notability in the article itself. This is simply an insignificant topic with no evidence it warrants coverage here; better treated at Wookieepedia, with a dab page or redirect to Jedi in its place. --EEMIV (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM, I wouldn't say the notability is "no longer in question". There are clearly people questioning it; let's not assume they're convinced without convincing them.

To me as well, it appears that those sources mention the academy in passing, and/or fail to provide more than trivial coverage. For example, I've just gone through the "Universalities" link. There's a one-liner entry defining the Academy, and a couple of passing mentions. Besides that, the search hits in that source are references to the computer game Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy and to Kevin J. Anderson's Jedi Academy trilogy. The game has its own article, which might serve as a good merge/redirect target.

Saying "please withdraw this nomination" pretty much never works; you might as well know that ahead of time. If you focus your energies on improving the article now, that's how you prevent the deletion going through. Trying to win this discussion without first doing that just won't do you, or the Academy, any favors. We need sources that actually discuss the Academy itself, as a topic in its own right. Try stripping the article down to what is specifically verified in the sources, and see how much is left.

Have a look at Category:Star Wars location lists. A good solution might be to create List of Star Wars buildings. Any building that is covered there in enough detail—from sources—could then be split off into its own article. That's often a good approach. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's be clear, I did not create this article, and it's not a topic I'm wildly interested in, but in reviewing the AfD I am finding lots of sources. The nominator and those trying to delete it haven't added any. Some of the sources are more in depth than others, but this is clearly a very significant part of the Star Wars series that has been a focal point for games and a setting for storylines in various mediums. I'm certainly willing to consider a merge and willing to collaborate on improving the article, but if I'm the only one working on it, and I have to constantly defend the articl'es notability against deletion, that isn't very helpful or collaborative. I'm adding sources and with a little help from others we can fix the article or work out a proper merge through collegial discussion. This is a collaborative encyclopedia so nominating things for deletion and then expecting someone else to do all the work in fixing them isn't very helpful. And just in the one source you mention this subject is on six different pages. So while that isn't in itself substantial coverage it's six bits of good information and taken with other coverage it's what's required to build a good article on this subject. Fictional subjects are generally given in depth coverage in the New York Times, so the extent of coverage and discussion of this subject in various sources discussing it's influence in the real world where Jedi Academies have been started, as an example of religious modeling in fiction, and a fictional element in an extraordinarily popular game, as a setting for a series of books, and as a plot element in one of the most popular sci-fi universes of all times gives a very strong indication that it's important enough to be worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that I and others are trying to make is that we have looked and found no reliable sources showing notability. I fully believe EEMIV nominated this article in good faith for the appropriate reasons, not as a sneaky backhanded attempt to get someone to improve an article in his or her stead. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM, perhaps we're talking past each other. I don't claim that nominating an article for deletion without trying to fix it is helpful. However, people do it, and you can't change that. It is a concrete fact that asking someone to withdraw the nomination and help build the article doesn't work. Don't do things that don't work; do things that work.

Fixing the article works, and you don't have to defend it against deletion, ever. Just fix it up, in your own time, and if it gets deleted out from under you, ask me for a copy so you can develop it in your user space until it's ready. I will happily provide that on request. Expecting others to help you doesn't work, unless you're lucky. If luck doesn't come through, do something that works instead.

You can't make people be what you wish they would be. That doesn't work. Do things that work. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You can't make people care about this article, but if you care about it, you might be able to save it. Arguing on this page won't get you there. Editing the article very well might. Why argue on this page, when you know that won't work? You do know that, don't you?

If your goal is to feel righteous and wronged by a cruel world, then arguing here is a great way to do that. I can't imagine that's your goal, so what point in arguing here? There's almost never a case on Wikipedia where going more than 2 rounds of argument is a remotely good idea. Do things that are good ideas. Arguing doesn't work very well. Editing articles does. Creating a List of Star Wars buildings article is the solution that I think is most likely to work, so why not do it? I'll tell you why I don't do it: I don't care about this article. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:11, 1 September 2009 (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.