Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tantive IV (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. Merging as an alternative was discussed, but not conclusively. In any case, merging does not require an open AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tantive IV[edit]

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

An individual spaceship from Star Wars. Source coverage is non-independent or superficial (WP:GNG). Such content is better suited to fan wikis (WP:WAF). Sandstein 15:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple news sources (see Find Sources template, above) Cover this fictional element in the context of the tie in between Rogue One and Star Wars (You can call it 'A New Hope' if you want to; I decline). Further, a merger of some sort--into either movie or some other Star Wars article--is preferable per WP:ATD-M. "This belongs on a fan wiki" is not a reason for deletion, but really part of WP:NIME. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment even the rocks is Star Wars could probably pass GNG with plenty of coverage, this is really part of the ongoing argument about how much popular culture is allowed in Wikipedia. Dysklyver 09:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not opposed to merge if a decent target article is proposed as candidate. 01:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

This opinion lacks an argument why the article should be kept. Sandstein 10:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd reject that it is a GNG fail. Artw (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sourcing is sufficient to meet the GNG and out of universe context is sufficient to prevent the content from being unencyclopedic "fancruft". Eluchil404 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2017 (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.