Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Academy (Star Wars)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial Academy (Star Wars)[edit]
- Imperial Academy (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No citations to third-party sources to establish notability. Entirely plot summary. A minor component within Star Wars, and wholly insignificant in the real world. --EEMIV (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appropriately placed spin off article, decently referenced. GlassCobra 13:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: An interpretable non-canon Star Wars subject that also contains no inline citations, thus making this sort of article vulnerable to original research. Please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if the Imperial Academy is notable (which this page does nothing to demonstrate), the current article is so in-universe it would have to be rewritten from scratch to be suitable for an encyclopaedia. The reader doesn't even learn who (in the real world) invented the Academy, or in which works of fiction it has appeared. EALacey (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and source by giving the specific places in the works where the various statements come from. That's the proper sourcing. DGG (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup. The article is fairly cited, no reason to delete. Could do with a bit of a clean-up though. TheMoridian 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs some tidying up, other than that there's no reason to delete. Walnutjk (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden of proof is on those adding/restoring content -- where is the reason to keep as substantiated by meeting by notability guideline through citations to multiple, reliable third-party sources? --EEMIV (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2008 (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.