Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Star Wars species

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. (non-admin closure) Maliner (talk) 15:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Star Wars species[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

These lists are all WP:CRUFT. The sources are mostly primary sources, being the actual novels these creatures appear in and the Star Wars website. There is nothing to demonstrate that these species meet WP:GNG. The notable members of these species are all at List of Star Wars characters.

I am also nominating the rest of these lists:

Nathan121212 (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Instead of having a discription for a species in every single article for the films, books, shows, video games, and whatnot, its just easier to have them in one place to link to. Valid spinoff articles and information list. List of Star Wars species (A–E) has 21,399 pageviews in the past 90 days. [1] List of Star Wars species (P–T) has 35,037. Dream Focus 18:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dream Focus makes a good point. This is a reasonable alternative to having a huge number of individual articles. At one point, we had individual articles for practically every pokemon leading to the phrase [[WP:POKEMON]|Pokémon test]] being made. Graywalls (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:NLIST. "Star Wars species" is a subject of both scholarly and popular discussion. See, e.g., [2], [3] (examples of non-primary discussions of various species from a pop culture perspective), and [4] (a scholarly analysis of Star Wars including its various species). Note also that one of the common selection criteria for lists is that Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see how these do not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's possible that a single list of THE most notable species in Star Wars would be suitable for Wikipedia, but these numerous totally indiscriminate lists violate WP:NOT and would need to be redone from scratch. WP:TNT applies in this case, as it would be very difficult to clean this up. Wikipedia =/= Wookiepedia. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of Star Wars species, neutral as into how many sublists this gets divided. I have no doubt that "Star Wars species" passes WP:NLIST (Star Wars is one of the very few franchises where one could say that), lists are better than subnotable stand-alone articles and better than nothing, and the rest seems to be a matter of organizing knowledge. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This meets WP:NLIST. Here are a few books that discuss the grouping. [5][6][7][8]. Here's a PhD dissertation [9]. This paper makes a short mention in a broader discussion [10]. There's a bit of tongue-in-cheek coverage in this Wiley book [11] (non-exhaustive search). —siro χ o 09:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enumerable and useful in its specialized field. – SJ + 04:16, 21 September 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.