Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars creatures

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 of the debate was kept no consensus - default to keep Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars creatures[edit]

Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. — Mike (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment following up a vote below: In terms of Star Wars creatures not contributing to the fame of their subject, I disagree: the tauntaun sliced open was not only a key plot point, but it gave viewers an interest in one of the creatures. The Banthas are often used in all Star Wars Tatooine settings. A major plot device of The Phantom Menace was swimming through the core and encountering numerous sea monsters and creatures, some of which were replicated with, say, legos. Creatures' sounds are also key to the sound/music feel of a scene. Clearly, a wide variety, no, a whole list Star Wars creatures played a major role in the films and the books, and so on. An option would be a rewrite to an encyclopedic article describing the significance of creatures in relation to the Star Wars universe; a rewrite that could begin soona nd be finished in a matter of days. Clearly, the topic of creatures in star wars has plenty of significance; it's the cruft safeguard that I'm most worried about. — Deckill e r 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Listcruft, triviacruft, fancruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep originally, I merged these into a list to get someone else to nominate it for deletion. However, we need to make sure that these do not get their own articles in the future. If someone can create an eneyclopedic article on star wars technology (or devices, in this case), then I would support that. Think of it this way; having one semi-guideline violation beats having 150 major guideline violations. The lesser of two evils is that this list remain as a "cruft dam" to provide potential for an encyclopedic shift and also to save on process, time, and lost ambition by new users with potential. — Deckill e r 18:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Deckiller. I like the cruft dam idea - contain it on one page so it doesn't get out of control (we're not Wookieepedia). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 20:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT there is an old saying about disk-space and disk-quota. The more quota one has, the more quota one will use. It's a great idea to contain, but it will simply never work. A better idea would be to have a sister project that allows it to grow, along with all of the other TV show articles that can never be maintained to an encyclopedic standard and which hinder policies by existing as precedents to confuse new users like myself. Delete it. Ste4k 21:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those are some good points; and Wikibooks would be a solid place for this information. However, I still stand by my idea — we have seen a significant reduction in mini star wars articles in, for example, the creatures section. Additionally, it is still possible to provide citations, enhanced prose, and other things while still serving as a dam. Also, it (when done correctly) prevents any conflicts by providing a compromise. Containing it into a list may not work, but deleting this list and having fans create minor articles without knowing any better will, in essense, force us to deal with 80+ other AfDs. For example, one day I merged about 30 minor topics into a list. From that day on, users added their cruft to the list; not in their own articles. It saved on work, time, and it left the information grouped together for the possible chance of a encyclopedic turn. Look at Spira (Final Fantasy X), which was originally a collection of about 20 articles. It is now a good article. Final Fantasy magic used to be a list of magic spells. Or, heck, most of the other Final Fantasy pages for that matter. It can be done.

At the same time, I would also like to address that Wikipedia is not paper, which means that having a cruft magnet (that, as a collective body, can actually be easily referenced and enhanced to try to adhere to more policies in order to bring it to a closer encyclopedic standard) won't divert attention away from our featured articles. As a matter of fact, if we have to deal with many minor stubs, it may have more of a chance of turning people off when they hit "random article".

This is a no win situation. I try to look at the side that has the chance of being the less damaging to the encyclopedia as a whole (and not just one policy or guideline). We keep the article, it's still keeping minor stuff on it. We don't keep the article, the cruft will spill out and alienate many users with potential (don't worry, I'm not one of them — I didn't contribute to this article outside of merges and janitorial work. the only thing I have to lose is edit count.). — Deckill e r 21:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Winning and losing appear to be biased means of judging. I prefer policy. At least I know that it was based on a consensus of those who came before me. If you think that policy is incorrect, then there are other places to discuss those. Ste4k 22:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, for Wikipedia, winning would be reaching the goal of having an online encyclopedia with encyclopedic information. Losing would be failing to attain that goal (and as I previously mentioned, deleting this list may cause more breaches in policy than this list (if it even has any), which means more disputes and the other points I mentioned above)). Policies help guide something to the goal, or help maintain that goal once it's attained. They serve as central rules that all articles strive to attain by constant editing and discussions on what meets them and what does not. On this specific level (in my interpretation), winning would be having no creaturecruft; losing would be having some sort of creaturecruft present. Wikipedia policy is known for being interpreted several ways; this is the main reason why it is often debated during AfDs. And yes, some of those are "fanboys", but unfortunately for the encyclopedia, fanboys often count toward consensus. Please note that I am not a fanboy, nor do I have any interest in this list; I am merely speaking on behalf of those who feel that this can and does meet policy, and serves other uses beneficial to the integrity of the encyclopedia.

For example, when we talk about an indiscriminate collection of information, this is often held by a case by case basis because of the numerous other policies and guidelines, personal interpretations, and so on. In short; I may see something as meeting policy that you do not. On the topic of policy, creatures are common in every branch of Star Wars, which makes up hundreds of books, six featured movies, dozens of video games, hundreds of comics, and so on. If something is noticed from, say, six different sources, it will obviously be more notable than some of the stuff that already meets policy because the human mind makes connections. If I remember correctly, that line about "it is famous in association with the topic of the list" was put in as a safeguard to keep lists that have some sort of notability, but still serve as "lists of information".

While I personally think that most of these creatures should only be mentioned in a synopsis (at most), the policy as I see it seems to overrule my own opinion in terms of this list's usage for enhancing the encyclopedia's content (and not its structure — that's the "cruft dam" idea). star wars creatures are "famous" as the policy states (and the topic of star wars creatures), and many of these creatures are commonly dicsussed because they appear as creatures in Star Wars. So, while some fo these creatures are part of a famous branch of a large fictional universe, many are, of course, not famous because they did not appear in numerous media sources. That is why the list is a split between policy and non-policy; some are notable enough in a list, others are not. That is where the cruft magnet concept really leaned me toward support in this case. So yes, while this isn't a place to change policy, it is a place to enforce an arguement with rationale based on interpretations of the policy and in relation with common sense. My "cruft magnet" idea was to provide a neutral way of compromise between deletionism and inclusionism while displaying the potential benefits for the encyclopedia.

The above makes me think of an alternative: if a creature is referenced in many sources (making it well-known), then perhaps it deserves inclusion in the list. On the other hand, if it's a creature from one book, then it should be taken out of the list. The list would still remain, but it could be sifted to adhere to a more agreed interpretation of the WP:NOT policy. If other, fixable policy breeches are taken care of, then this list would be all set. — Deckill e r 23:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Deckiller. The Wookieepedian 00:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller. Nifboy 00:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller and also using that logic you could delete every list on Wikipedia. Jedi6 -(need help?) 01:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller. BryanG^(talk) 02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller. Skope 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep. Most of that is pretty important. -LtNOWIS 06:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorise. Failing that, keep. -- GWO
Keep per Deckiller. Lynnathon 13:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deckiller and, to be consistent with other similar articles, move to Minor creatures in Star Wars. (See Minor characters in Star Wars for the parallel example.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite a few important creatures in there. --maru (talk) contribs 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Restrict to those from canonical sources. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Somewhat fancrufty, needs sources and cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bibliomaniac15 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 6 Jul 2006 (UTC)
Delete The 'cruft dam' argument is a non-starter for me, if people want to try to create these articles, then they need to be informed of the encyclopedic policy, not pacified. I cannot sense the good in it. KWH 04:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to mention that I see things like "fair use" images being brought here from Wookieepedia to decorate the list. [1] That's not a fair use. KWH 04:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Actually, both Wikipedia and Wookieepedia share information via the GDFL. But even if this list is no longer worthy of Wikipedia, then I advise all users working on it to contribute to Wookieepedia where everything is separated and not under deletion. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just to be clear, only the original writings contributed by 'pedia users are licensed under the GFDL. Ships, characters, and other story elements which were made up by Lucas, Zahn, and others are copyrighted by them and can only be included under a fair use claim. KWH 22:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, What if someone wants to find out about Tauntauns or Acklay or Blenjeel SandWorms? Sorry, but deleting this page is stupid. User: Shaak Ti 22:02 7 July 2006
Strong Delete per nom. Waste of space. Robertsteadman 08:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment unfortunately, it's impossible to be a waste of space per se, because WP:NOT a paper encyclopedia. — Deckill e r 12:28, 8 July 2006 (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.