Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars creatures (2nd nomination)

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 keep, though we really need to get on with cleaning this up.--Kubigula (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars creatures

Wikipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT#DIR). Additionally, this is very long list of fictional characters with no real world context. Pilotbob 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- Pilotbob 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:DELETION#Merging and WP:LIST, lists are a proper method of collecting information like this rather than as individual articles. Now, this particular list is bloated and needs serious clean-up and sourcing, but as there are SOME notable Star Wars creatures, there is no need to delete the list, instead it should be cleaned up and reduced down to those that have reliable sources. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. Wikipedia has many lists very similar to this one; it seems to be consensus that sourced facts about notable fiction are encyclopedic, regardless of how trivial they may seem. And, as Jayron32 points out, it's certainly better that this information exist in a list than in separate articles. --Hyperbole 23:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kepp per Hyperbole – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOT#DIR where is says "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" and per WP:SAL. Viperix 03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is just a giant plot summary (see WP:NOT#PLOT) with no analysis and nothing to indicate real world notability. It is just info about characters with no real world context at all. It has been tagged for a while and shows no signs of improvement. It does not cite reliable secondary sources per WP:FICT and is cannot be cited to meet the criteria of notability established therein (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOT#INFO) Pilotbob 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate that these fictional characters have any real-world notability, or provide justification for the extensive in universe plot summary. --Gavin Collins 11:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Star Wars is itself an undeniably notable fictional universe, and the creatures therein absolutely help make it what it is. The article is certainly not a plot summary an any way. I would have no problem with trimming the article down to more notable and/or better-sourced creatures, but an outright deletion is out of the question. AndalusianNaugahyde 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbole, Viperix, and AndalusianNaugahyde, as a useful list. This is so obviously notable as an idea to be covered by WP:OUTCOMES. I'd go along with trimming - it should only include notable characters, whether major or supporting, in books or movies. Get back to me if you want me to do the dirty work. Bearian 19:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Plot, WP:WAF and I'm sure others. There is already a Star Wars wiki for this stuff.Ridernyc 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Hyperbole (talk · contribs), and also there seems to be good referencing, even if there could be more. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 10:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
To be honest, as co-founder of Wookieepedia, I would say that the information is well-protected there and this list can technically be seen as unnecessary on Wikipedia. However there seems to be enough people that want to keep up with it, though someone will add things from our wiki here and make it even worse. Weak delete. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many books have been written about the fictional Star Wars universe, meaning that lots of fictional Star Wars stuff should stay on Wikipedia. Some of these, such as ewoks and sarlaccs, are also very well known icons of pop culture. And, you know. 96T 16:01, 8 November 2007 (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.