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 Jedi Prince. There is a strong consensus among the uninvolved editors in this discussion that this character has insufficient notability to warrant an independent article; and should be redirected accordingly. I have left the edit history intact to allow a selective merge of content; but that fact should not be taken as a license to revert the redirect again without gaining consensus to do so - the redirect will be protected if it becomes necessary. ~ mazca ^talk 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trioculus[edit]

Plot summary and original research for a marginally significant character. No sources independent from the franchise/licensee indicate any notability. Teeny blurb of marginal interest ("greatest moment" thing) can be sufficiently covered in List of Star Wars characters, which is appropriate target for Trioculus to redirect to -- but the topic itself fails WP:GNG, the content failing WP:OR and WP:PLOT. --EEMIV (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized the article is a blatant copyrig violation from Wookieepedia. I've restored the earlier redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten the templates to smack down to close an AfD -- which seems appropriate here, since there's no earlier non-copyvio article history subject to discussion. If someone can go ahead and close this... --EEMIV (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the redirect, which inadvertently conceals the AfD notice. Frankly, getting this article removed, rather than having the blatant copyvio exist in the background (and beneath the redirect), seems a far better avenue of pursuit, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CP. When a copyvio exists, the preferred course (when available) is to revert to a previous non-copyvio version. I've *again* restoring the redirect. Since my earlier post asking for someone to apply to AfD closure templates apparently wasn't clear enough: consider this a withdrawal of the AfD nom, since AfD isn't necessary. --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing the nom here and putting it up for CSD. --EEMIV (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You might want to set a link to that CSD here, so that folk following the chain of events can be clearly led to the appropriate forum. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the speedy, as wookiepedia is creative commons licence thingy. I've added the attribution. I think it would be best to let this AfD run. That said, if I've misunderstood the copyvio/licensing from wikia, then it's speedy deletable. Ged UK 19:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character on this article is notable and should be kept. He is as notable as Jacen Solo or Thrawn just some peple don't see this as seeing they have very biased views which shouldn't come into Wikipedia. Plus characters on here like Jacen Solo isn't very notable so I don't know why that's up. Plus if there is anything wrong on the article, I'm sure any one can help to fix it. --Victory93 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this character from my opinion is notable. He is somehow what shaped the Star Wars universe to which was the birth of the Imperial Warlords. The only reason why people (not including authors or any official Star Wars people) say he's not notable due to the series not having much popularity like the Thrawn series and all those. So yes, this article should stay and as I can see is bit too long so someone could clearly help to fix the article. --Trioculus1 (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) — Trioculus1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, your very first edit, and you came here to vote on the article already? Hmm, am I the only one who finds this somewhat...suspect? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, I should do something else besides butt in this argument. Just that this guy here on this article is one of my favs and I beleive he's notable. --Trioculus1 (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::I am not sure you are qualified to render an opinion on the matter, seeing as you've been here less than 24 hours. Your first votes are curious in that they seem to follow - almost immediately - those of another user, Victory93. I am sure someone else will ask the question, but I am going to ask you to review our extremely strict policy regarding sock- and meat-puppetry. If, after reading those, you wish to redact your votes and comments, little else will come of it. If you wish not to , certain processes will be set in motion that will have some unfortunate consequences. Please read those polcies I linked and act quickly. Consider this your sole notice in the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jedi Prince; seems an obvious choice. Is a deletion discussion really necessary? Powers ^T 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um no. This character is a major character in the Star Wars universe. From what I've seen reading the Jedi Prince series, he's as major as like Issard and Thrawn but strange that there isn't an article about Issard. Plus if were to be redirect (which I hope not) should redirect to the T section on the Star Wars character list page. --Trioculus1 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he's not. Unlike Thrawn, his impact on subsequent stories has been virtually nil, to the point where retcons were necessary just to keep him part of the EU. And it's not strange that Issard doesn't have an article, because only the most notable Star Wars characters have articles. Thrawn has an entire trilogy named after him, the events of which have repercussions throughout the EU. Issard is a step down, and Trioculus is even farther below her. As for the redirect target, since he really only appeared in the one series, the article on that series seems the most appropriate redirect. Regardless, my point stands that deletion is wholly unnecessary because there will need to be a redirect of some sort. Powers ^T 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable, and largely copied from other sources. The particulars of the article and the subsequent defenses of it by brand new SPA's stink to high heaven. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual. Agreed that he isn't nearly notable enough for an individual article. But he's still worth a mention--how long or short I leave to other people.. None of the arguments for deletion explain why there should not be even that. DGG (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is already sufficiently covered at the List of... No content here worth merging; no need to retain edit history. --EEMIV (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, DGG - sorry for not having mentioned that. There isn't anything in the article that isn't either a copyvio or covered in the List article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So just redirect it. Why bother with a deletion? Powers ^T 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, I've no problem with that, save for the vestigial information that in essence a cut-n-paste copyvio. We could simply delete all the contents, remove the edit history, and then redirect it, but that seems like a lot more work than deleting the article and subsequently creating a simple redirect. My concern is the copyvio being presented by an accused sockpuppet set. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is a copyvio, then it should be speedily deleted and a redirect can be created in its place. Powers ^T 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did redirect it, several times. A tendentious editor continued restoring the content, so I brought it here for quick, time-constrained community input. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't actually want it deleted? Powers ^T 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plopped in the redirect as an alternative to deletion. Because that didn't stick, screw the alternatives; yes, I wanted it deleted. There is no content worth retaining or merging. --EEMIV (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @115 · 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge and redirect to Jedi Prince as this character lacks real-world notability, is very poorly cited, and is full of original research. Some of this information still belongs on Wikipedia, hence the partial merge, but most of this is beyond the scope of reliable sourcing. Them From Space 06:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, preferably to Jedi Prince but List of Star Wars characters works as well. To my knowledge, Trioculus doesn't come up in any significant way outside the Jedi Prince series, which itself is a youth-oriented series that is not particularly significant or even referenced much in other Expanded Universe works. Thus, he falls pretty short of the notability bar I'd expect for a Star Wars character article on WP. No reason to delete a viable search term though (and hopefully an AfD consensus to redirect would help to make it stick this time). BryanG (talk) 21:27, 10 July 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.