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 List of The Book of Boba Fett characters. Merge is a common outcome from AFD Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Garsa Fwip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log |

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

Garsa Fwip is an extremely minor character whose reception consists of only three sources, two of which are simple lists. I'm not even sure why she has a page to begin with. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The articles on creation and development, not just reception, counts towards GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: All of the creation and development articles can easily be moved to the casting section of The Book of Boba Fett#Production. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can. But you've proposed an AfD-enforced outcome. I have no objection to a merge discussion on a talk page concluding this, but is it a policy-mandated outcome? It is not. Jclemens (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD was long overdue for an entirely non-notable character, both in terms of her impact in the show and in real life. It might not be policy-mandated to delete this article, but its mere existence is eyebrow raising. If you have no objection to a merge discussion, then why advocate for keeping this page? Unnamed anon (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But she's not non-notable, so I'd recommend you go read up on the Wikipedia concept or be more precise in your usage. Non-notable things get merged at AfD. Notable things better served by merging get merged in merge discussions if there's consensus to do so. Maintaining this distinction is important to keep things in perspective and document the right level of consensus: un-redirecting a notable character for improvement should be something everyone is free to do whenever they think they can make the encyclopedia better. Jclemens (talk) 00:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Book of Boba Fett. The information here can easily be covered in the Production and Reception sections. Some Reception info can also be merged to relevant episodes if need be. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pokelego999, finally somebody who realizes that the few actual good sources can go on another page instead of the a ridiculous page for a seldom talked about bit character. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The character is one of relatively few standout female characters in the Star Wars franchise, portrayed by a notable actress with decent coverage. The topic reached Good article status, and is interesting. No, the character may not be as notable as Princess Leia but she does not have to be. Worst case scenario, we can redirect to List_of_The_Book_of_Boba_Fett_characters#Garsa_Fwip and merge in some of the pertinent information from here that is not covered there.— TAnthony^Talk 18:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TAnthony: "Relatively few standout female characters" is false on both fronts, as this character is not standout at all, and there are plenty of other standout females like Mon Mothma, Padme, Ahsoka, Bo-Katan, Rey, Jyn Erso, Rose, Qi'ra, the list goes on. The "good article" status is something I disagree with, and "interesting" is entirely subjective and something I also disagree with. The notable actress can easily go under the casting subsection in The Book of Boba Fett#Production. Unnamed anon (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep as the in depth development and the casting and reception section show notability. It qualifies as a stand alone article. The GA status also already illustrates its importance and how it should not be deleted. It does not matter if the character is "minor" – a character can be minor but still make a big impact/be talked about in sources, as done so here. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 09:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: I can maybe see an argument that the casting section can prove notability, but the reception section is horrid. Only three sources are in there, and two of them are just lists of Star Wars characters the sources like. Unnamed anon (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make the section "horrid". 3 sources is better than 1 (and better than 0) and lists are also perfectly acceptable. I think the creature of the article should feel very proud DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Lists are not acceptable sources for reception, and 3 sources are too little. I'd like to ping Kung Fu Man, who recently has redirected many pages because of this very reason. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the MOS does it say that lists are unacceptable? Pages have been using them for reception for years and no one has said that it's unacceptable..? DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it officially says anywhere in the MoS, but it should be obvious why lists aren't ideal sources. It's because they don't actually fully detail the character the Wikipedia article is about, and usually are simply saying "this character exists", with very little other substance, and the Garsa Fwip "article" reeks of that. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some listicle articles are viable sources on Wikipedia. While they should be shied away from and not used as primary backing, they can be used as additional sources if they have something to say about the character. Many articles on Wikipedia use these listicles effectively, it's just a matter of knowing which to avoid and which to use. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel the discussion here is based around notability, when it really shouldn't be. Yes, we can verify that she passes GNG, but the real question is whether or not that justifies a separate article or not. What the article says can be covered by other articles extremely easily, and Garsa herself doesn't seem to garner enough individual reception beyond that to justify a separate article. I actually missed that a List of The Book of Boba Fett characters article existed, but a lot of Garsa's information already seems to be covered there from a glance, and the reception can easily be slotted in without issue, alongside any information not already there. A lot of this information can also be, as mentioned earlier, either moved to the main article or respective episodes, depending on what works best. Though, yes, it is notable, there just isn't enough in the article to justify its separation from the other various Book of Boba Fett articles, in my view. Pokelego999 (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been pinged into this and I would like to blatantly say I not only don't appreciate words being put in my mouth, but I also don't care for being pointed at an AfD like this and asked to give my opinion. That feels like canvassing. I would have likely given my two cents on my own over time, but I don't feel comfortable offering my opinion on this with that considered now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man: I sincerely apologize if I put words in your mouth; that was not my intention at all. I also did mot mean to canvas; the reason for pinging you was because this article, which is full of cruft and honestly poorly written, seems very similar to many the articles you redirected from my viewpoint, and I wanted advice from somebody with more experience than me in redirecting on when it what qualifies as good or poor sourcing, as the past few times I have WP:BLAR'd it has been reverted and contested even if the article was obviously crufty and problematic; whether you proved me right or wrong was irrelevant. If you still wish to not give your opinion on this article, that is all right, I just hope you know that canvassing/putting words in your mouth was not my intention. Unnamed anon (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then by all means, please learn to improve articles appropriately and expend effort in that direction, rather than trying to use AfD, a blunt instrument, to force outcomes not demanded by policy. Hit me up on my talk page if you want some coaching on how to do this effectively. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Normally, I would agree that improving an article would be good, but in this case this is an extremely minor character. In my opinion, minor characters should only get wikipedia articles either if sourcing can prove that the character has had a real-life impact or was a giant breakout character in terms of reception on par with the main characters, for example Howard and Harold McBride or Edna Mode. There is nothing of that sort for Garsa Fwip, and even a simple google search shows nothing notable about this character's reception. I was always questioning why this page even existed, this AfD was very long overdue. The few good sources can be merged, as Pokelego999 and I have been talking about. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice, and thank you for sharing, but that's not policy. Learning to fix stuff is important, and I would prefer that AfD initiators who nominate something for deletion that is kept immediately become responsible for adding in all the improvements and sourcing brought up in the AfD before they're allowed to start another. That's not policy either, but I like it much better than your proposal. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is currently no consensus and certainly no consensus to Delete. I encourage the nominator, User:Unnamed anon to refrain from commenting on every remark in this AFD discussion or you could be blocked from participating in this discussion due to bludgeoning. You've made your nomination and views known, you don't need to counter every opinion that disagrees with your own. It certainly won't convince anyone to agree with your perspective.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Very unimpressive Reception section that consists mainly of notes that she was 10th or so on some listicles. She is not named in the heading of any ref cited. Fails WP:GNG IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete / Merge to List of The Book of Boba Fett characters This never should have been given Good article sourcing. The character appears in four scenes of four episodes in what all reviews call a cameo, most reception being over fans of the actress happy to see her in Star Wars, not about the character herself. Everything Pokelego999 said is correct. 113.30.191.65 (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep coverage seems to establish notability. – Meena • 14:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This fictional character is not notable. All encyclopaedic information about her should be given in the television series and character list articles to the extent appropriate per WP:DUE. PatricePatricia (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Most of the sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY, others content farms, and others only tangentially related, therefore, I am having difficulty seeing how it passes GNG. The nominator's argument is not necessarily disqualifying for an article, and their further commentary verges on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but upon further inspection, notability is seriously in doubt. The Keep !votes seem to be along the lines of WP:ITSIMPORTANT without demonstrating evidence of the supposed SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Fails WP:GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I may well have !voted differently if this were a merge discussion, but if the question is whether this article is policy-compliant, I feel it unambiguously is. The article is about the entire topic of the fictional character - its role in the series, its creation and portrayal by a notable actress, and its reception. All of these elements are sourced, taken together reflect a notable topic. If editors wish to take this information and organize it in a different manner, that can be decided on the talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:24, 29 August 2023 (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.