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 no consensus. Pretty much per Sandstein; some of the more recent comments are more substantive, but some aren't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Landspeeder

Landspeeder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Since this is a Star Wars topic I am skipping a PROD and going directly to AfD. Unlike some other SW vehicles, landspeeder is hardly a household name. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement; it's an element of the background that few noticed, so there is even no plot summary, just some information from niche (and WP:PRIMARY and/or not independent, so not sufficient for establishing any notability) Star Wars books for die hard fans like Star Wars Complete Vehicles New Edition. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar, a passing mention here and there is the best I could see, and nothing seems in-depth or reliable. I do wonder if some sort of a merge with the Speeder bike (not a very good article, neither, but slightly more recognizable as a name, I think?) could save some of the content here, otherwise a redirect to List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles might be the best alternative to outright deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉( talk) 13:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep It seems quite likely that the landspeeder is known to most households and there's certainly a LEGO model, just like the Deathstar and Star Destroyer. The nomination is just some vague ideas about cleanup while the claims that there's no coverage are false, as usual. For example, Perspectives: Sounds of Cinema: What Do We Really Hear? explains that the sound effect was devised as "cars on the Los Angeles Harbor freeway heard through a vacuum cleaner pipe" which "reflects its owner's youth by producing high-pitched frequencies that match the characteristics of his voice". Insofar as the nomination recommends an alternative to deletion, it is not appropriate here. Andrew🐉( talk) 12:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Andrew Davidson, the existence of a LEGO toy is hardly relevant for notability. And the academic article you cite mentions the topic (landspeeder) twice (in that many sentences), and is the classic example of trivial (passing) type of a mention that does not suffice to establish notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • The existence of toys such as the LEGO model refutes the nomination's unsupported assertion that "landspeeder is hardly a household name". The academic paper is WP:SIGCOV in that it supplies independent and reliable facts about the topic, demonstrating that it has been noticed and that we have material for our article. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Andrew Davidson, Subjects of most LEGO sets are not household names. But nobody is expecting you to change your vote, Andrew, don't worry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
        • It's interesting to note that there are numerous LEGO models of the landspeeder in its various incarnations. There is so much coverage of these that they are notable as a subset of the topic. For example, this review starts "Luke Skywalker's X-34 Landspeeder is definitely among the most recognisable vehicles from the Original Trilogy." while this book details the various versions, "The first major redesign of Luke's landspeeder is two studs wider than the 1999 version..." You see, Lego Star Wars is now a major brand in its own right and so is well known to many households. We need more pages to cover this topic fully, not less. Andrew🐉( talk) 15:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Reviews are out there for this thing in toy form. https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/6/17464476/radio-flyer-lukes-landspeeder-toys-star-wars-play-test Coverage exist in various reliable sources of whenever someone builds one on their own. You click the link at the top of the AFD for searching for all the Wikipedia considered reliable sources, and get a massive number of results to look through. Dream Focus 15:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Dream Focus, A review of a toy of a fictional entity is not relevant to the notability of a fictional entity, per WP:NOTINHERITED. And WP:GOOGLEHITS=notability logic has been discredited in AFD for about a decade. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Its the same thing. Be it a review of it as a toy, something in a movie, something someone built in their backyard, or whatnot. And I was not mentioning Google hits, I was just pointing out how incredibly easy it was to find ample reliable sources giving it significant coverage. Dream Focus 14:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Besides the sources brought up by other editors, my WP:BEFORE reveal reviews of the vehicle in toy form as well as multiple articles covering homemade recreations of the vehicle. The nominator has again made misleading representations about Wikipedia guidelines and policy; an essay authored by individual Wikipedia editors was presented as a "requirement", and has an editing pattern of misusing AfD to discuss potential merge targets for the nominated articles. Subjective opinions about the topic's notability were made as opposed to a proper source by source analysis found in the article as well as elsewhere on Google, so there is in fact no clear argument for the article to be deleted outright. The nature of this kind of rationale is considered inappropriate per global consensus by other Wikipedia editors, the discussion should be closed on a procedural basis, and any discussions about mergers or redirect targets should be made on the article's talk page. Haleth ( talk) 23:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep AfD is not clean-up, and the nominator knows this. Jclemens ( talk) 01:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The existence of a LEGO version of a toy or a few passing comments about how its sound was designed is nowhere close to what WP:GNG requires. The above comments are not grounded in any recognizable policy outside violating stuff such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NPA/ WP:AGF in general. How Piotrus can survive this toxic fans-vs-Wikipedia environment, I don't understand. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 07:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  And how exactly is your ad hominem and uncivil attacks on other editors who disagree with you or your favorite editor non-toxic or productive in any way to this AfD or other deletion discussions? Haleth ( talk) 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Fails GNG. Basically fancruft. Coretheapple ( talk) 16:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • The mere presence of fancruft is not evidence of non notability. ++ Lar: t/ c 22:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Lar, No, but the lack of any other serious coverage is. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Which is refuted by the significant amount of out-of-universe coverage cited in this article. Haleth ( talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply
        • I would be less concerned by this article if the "Depiction" section were thrown out, or if this article were merged with another. Coretheapple ( talk) 14:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep I will focus on the "12 different LEGO sets that are models of a given thing are not themselves evidence of notability" claim. It doesn't pass the reasonableness test. The LEGO Group is the largest toy company in the world. They nevertheless produce a finite number of different sets each year. When we factor out their own properties (Ninjago, Friends, and so forth), and factor out generic (police, generic houses, and so forth) sets, there are only a few hundred at most different topics or characters or props mentioned or covered. They very much care about how notable a particular prop is, and they are driven by their research. It is clear to me that if LEGO have chosen to model the Landspeeder, not just once, but multiple times, they have judged it to have wide appeal and to be widely known. It rises above mere fannish, but enters the realm of general awareness. So it's clearly a keep to me. If the article is crufty, fix it.. ++ Lar: t/ c 21:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Lar, Fix it how? By adding a list of LEGO sets? We are not a Brickpedia. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • By removing the cruft, of course. I'm pretty sure you're not new here, and do know how the editing process works. Once we've cleared up how to edit Wikipedia effectively, maybe we could return to the topic at hand, which is that Landspeeder is indeed a notable thing, worthy of an article, regardless of how much you disdain it. The massive amount of marketing behind it is both evidence of notability, and an explanation why it has a significant presence in our collective consciousness. Even if you're not conscious of it. ++ Lar: t/ c 06:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
      • Lar, Unless you want to use marketing sources like publisher description of relevant LEGO toys, we still need reliable sources that discuss the significance of this cultural object. Since you are not new here, I am sure you are familiar with requirements such as WP:GNG and WP:RS. So do show us which reliable, independent sources discussed the cultural (or marketing, even) significance of this concept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
        • Sufficient evidence of notability has been given to satisfy anyone who doesn't have a preconceived bias. This should be closed as keep not as inconclusive. Further, when people point out how many different replicas exist, or how many copies have been sold, you try to wriggle away by saying that we should write an article about the toy instead. THat suggestion is daft and would require all sorts of foolish circumlocutions to end up with an article that was essentially the same, but at the wrong location. I find your repeated moving of goalposts to be unhelpful and tiresome. Further, I find your repeated assertions that policies say things they do not, and your attempts to use discredited essays as if they were policy to be even more unhelpful. Stop. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Gaming the use of policies and guidelines, gaming the consensus-building process, and employing gaslighting tactics with regards to the discussion of sources comes to mind, and unfortunately it is not confined to this discussion. Haleth ( talk) 06:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
          • Lar, Stop? Please stop violating WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIV first with your attitude, please. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
            • I am comfortable that I've correctly characterised the perceptions of many about your behaviour, and trying to gaslight me by turning things around won't work. Stop trying to game the system. Stop trying to cast aspersions on others when you are called on your own behaviour. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete as the toys and replica aren't evidence of notability. Only significant third party coverage in reliable sources is notability. Not toys. Not editorial opinions about fame. Not blogs. Even the Kanye West blog isn't a reliable third party source, and that's even if you accept the gross name-dropping that Kanye West actually spent time writing his own blog. Jontesta ( talk) 22:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  If the toys get significant coverage in reliable sources, then do they not pass the general notability guidelines? And having an article for each one of them is pointless, best to have them altogether here, with background information about where the design came from, and other information about it. Dream Focus 22:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Dream Focus, First thing first. This is not an article about landspeeder (toy). This is an article about landspeeder, a fictional entity from Star Wars. That's not the same. A toy can be notable while the thing it portrays is not (in theory, at least). And here we are not discussing the toy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  • The WP:MOS subsections for fictional elements in film, anime and manga clearly make allowances for merchandise created in the likeness of fictional characters to be discussed as part of the subject article's marketing: WP:FILMMARKETING, Anime and manga, and WP:VG/CONTENT or Video game characters. If there is actual reception to the marketing element, that is even more relevant to the purpose of building a generalist encyclopedia. Sure, Landspeeders are technically not characters with a voice, but they are fictional elements all the same, and not truly alive or "real". Also, your assertion that a toy can be notable while the thing it portrays is not, is not supported by any guideline, policy, or common sense. Toys which are licensed merchandise in particular derive their marketability from their branding or ability to recreate the likeness of the entity it is based on, not the other way around. The question of whether notability is inherited or not is another essay that does not form part of the guidelines for Wikipedia's deletion or notability policies, and a purely subjective opinion that is not a compelling argument in deletion discussions. For editors who subscribe to the school of thought that a fictional topic must have some kind of real world impact, sources which discuss success or obscurity of specific merchandise since there is actual commercial activity involved, or sources which covers a person's real life efforts to recreate the likeness of the entity as an indicator of significance, clearly meets that demand for verification which is policy. Haleth ( talk) 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Haleth, Unless you are seriously suggesting that the existence of merchandise, measured by volume, is sufficient for notability, please tell us which reliable, independent sources discuss the cultural (or marketing, even) significance of this concept? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  I think you misunderstand my point. I am not talking about the mere existence of merchandise, and in any event we should not describe them indiscriminately without context or detail. I am talking about the fact that reliable sources exist which discuss the significance of the licensed merchandise which recreates the likeness of the subject (sometimes as a review), and the various MOS clearly makes allowances for licensed merchandise of the subject topic to be part of an article's scope of contents. The Verge piece linked by Dream Focus demonstrated this point: the article's tone would have been very different if the kid was riding a bike instead of a Landspeeder replica, and the author goes into detail about the perceived discrepancies between the cultural and market value of the Landspeeder merchandise, which is not something a Star Wars fansite or wikia would normally cover since it isn't in-universe cruft. People building replicas of a Landspeeder and having reliable sources covering their exploits is a sign of real world cultural impact. I am assuming you have already read those sources and disagree, so you are entitled to your opinion to disagree. If you had made a merge proposal on the talk page to List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles instead, I may have considered supporting a selective merge. But, you are advocating for outright deletion here, or are you, because you went on a tangent about a possible merger with another article? Your original argument cited issues with the state of sourcing and the prose, and then concluded that it fails GNG. Per WP:NEXIST as pointed out by myself and others, that is not a valid application of Wikipedia policy, and should be discounted by the closer when evaluating the consensus. Haleth ( talk) 08:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Haleth, Ok. Can you link to the "reliable sources exist which discuss the significance of the licensed merchandise which recreates the likeness of the subject"? Outside [1], which is written by a father about his 5-year old son? Because source =/= sources. A single article about a model of a film gadget that doesn't discuss the movie gadget but focuses on the replica is very borderline. This topic still very clearly fails WP:GNG - we haven't found anything about the topic (fictional car), and the best we did is an article about a replica build for a kid that, again, focuses on the replica, not to the film gadget. What we need are sources which discuss the film gadget - conception, design, reception, cultural significance, etc. Inferring from the existence of LEGO sets or models that there is significance is OR/SYNTH. But let's de-escalate. A merge can always be considered and is a perfectly good outcome of a deletion discussion, although I don't see what is valuable here enough to merge to the list you mentioned. This level of detail, with such inadequate sourcing, seems ok on wikia/fandom but we have a bit higher standards, which don't see met (per sources showing significance of this concept being limited to a single article about a derivative toy). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  • I don't see any evidence from my WP:BEFORE that it's a borderline case, and again you are moving the goal posts by focusing on the actual toy itself, not the subject topic it is licensed from. My issue is with your contradictory stance on the issue of merging as well as your fixation on using AfD to force a cleanup of the subject article when the topic is clearly covered by WP:ATD, if not a Keep. With regards to your lengthy response, I'll take the view of this essay in the interest of brevity. Here you go: none of the sources contain trivial mentions only, and if you feel that it's still insufficient, there's plenty more on Google Search where it came from. Haleth ( talk) 11:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Announcement post related to the article posted by Dream Focus - two articles on the same topic from the same reliable source counts as significant coverage, I would think.
  • Landspeeder Toy review - This time, a Lego toy review
  • This + this + this mentions the subject topic being featured on Children In Need 2019 as presented by Graham Norton. I believe the full contents of the show itself would contain the actual coverage.
  • Article which discuss the future of the taxi industry, analogy made to the Landspeeder
  • It's third party merchandising (licensing status is uncertain) covered by a reliable source, just to illustrate a point that the marketing of the subject topic has WP:SUSTAINED coverage without the promotional hype of a popular movie or TV show active in the same year.
  • Full article of the Landspeeder by a news site dedicated to cars which do not normally cover Star Wars
  • Coverage of another custom-made Landspeeder by an engineering-focused website

  • And if only those sources were discussing the topic of the fictional car in question. Maybe the topic of Replicas of Landspeeder or replicas of Star Wars vehicles in general is notable. But that's not the same thing as what we are discussing here. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  • They are the same. The sources specifically are talking about the fictional vehicle in question, not just any other Star Wars vehicle or ship. One source doesn't even talk about toys or replicas, but about the hypothetical future of the taxi service, so I am not sure if you have even read any of it. More importantly, they demonstrate eminent notability of the subject topic, and all are within a real world context in particular. Anything in-universe about the Landspeeder's place in the Star Wars setting would be labelled as cruft or WP:ALLPLOT that you would not like. Haleth ( talk) 17:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Haleth, The article about taxis (on niche sf portal) doesn't critically discuss landspeaders, they are used as an example. One could use any other fictional flying car in that article and it wouldn't change anything, except it's a baitclick portal so it tries to reference whatever is recently popular (The Mandalorian). Shrug. Right now this looks like no consensus, so be it. Maybe we will revisit it in 5-10 years and maybe our standards will have evolved further by then - or maybe there will be good sources and no revisiting will be necessary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  • San Francisco Examiner is not a "niche portal" as you are trying to pass off as. While not as eminently respectable as the New York Times, it's been publishing since 1863 with a credible claim for being the highest circulation newspaper in the San Francisco and Peninsula area even well into the 2010's. With all honesty, your persistent arguments are grasping at straws and has less to do with an insinuated lack of standards on Wikipedia and more to do with WP:DONTGETIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Haleth ( talk) 01:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

  • Piotrus, please provide an example of "A toy can be notable while the thing it portrays is not (in theory, at least)" because that's really a strange notion. I think you're just making stuff up to try to move the goalposts. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    • Lar, I am not moving anything. I am just not seeing sources that show the significance of this fictional entity which I consider separate from the toys based on it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
      • I agree with you. You are "just not seeing" things. However I submit that's not because they don't exist, but rather they don't fit your preconceived notions. If something has had multiple representations made of it, in multiple media, it is the "something" that's likely notable, not the myriad representations. Suggesting that people write myriad articles about the representations, instead of one about the thing represented is at best, daft. ++ Lar: t/ c 07:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC) (addendum: I do however, want to note that you successfully deflected me for a bit... I repeat the challenge. Give us some examples of things with multiple representations which are notable, while the thing itself is not notable. Go ahead... I'll wait... but if you can't, it puts paid to your notion that there should be an article about each toy but not about the thing represented ... ++ Lar: t/ c 07:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)) reply
        • Lar, Interesting challenge. We have articles on possibly notable toy series (products) that depict some fictional, non-notable characters, either completely (ex. Furskin Bears) or partially (ex. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures, Star Wars Miniatures). We have articles on hoaxes and memes and such that mislead some people into thinking the real thing is real (you know, exploding whale and such). There is stuff like Risley Park Lanx, an artifact that's notable because it is a replica (the original doesn't seem to warrant a separate article). Likewise, there are replica buildings or such like Roman Villa Borg for which the original doesn't appear notable. Hinomoto Oniko is a notable fictional character (design?) based on a non-notable (presumably) saying/concept. Statue of Unicorn Gundam is a notable sculpture of non-notable mecha RX-0 Unicorn (but the type of the macha is notable, Gundam (fictional robot)). There is a bunch of other sculptures of non-notable fictional characters ( Bagheera Fountain, Dickens and Little Nell (Elwell), Grigory and Aksinya (sculpture composition)). The later examples are probably closest here to the argument that a replica of a Landspeeder or a type of toy based on it may be notable, while the fictional entity is not. Doing this research led me to some weird stuff, btw. Maschinen Krieger ZbV 3000 - a fictional universe that doesn't appear to be based on any notable work or artist - probably should meet AfD... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
          • You found more than I expected. That was informative, thanks for doing the research. But are there any cases of *multiple* articles, each deemed notable, about a non notable thing? Remember, that's what you suggested was needed. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC) reply
            • Lar, Can you clarify which multiple articles I suggested may be notable here? FYI I think the car replica might be notable, but I don't think the toys (LEGO etc.) are (and anyway the mention of LEGO landspeeder(s) can exist in Lego Star Wars).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
              • I believe you were admitting earlier that Landspeeder (toy) was notable (since you can't wave away the millions, or even billions, of instances of such toys) while Landspeeder itself was not. The issue of course is that you can't really have that article... which toy are you referring to? There are so many different ones, of many different sorts. You've painted yourself into a corner. Which you then tried to get out of by saying the toys aren't notable. That dog don't hunt, there is plenty of evidence of notability for the toys. ++ Lar: t/ c 06:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC) reply
                • Lar Sigh. I never said the toys are notable, I said, in theory, they might be but usually almost never are, and in this case, I don't see what's different. The only thing that may be notable in this mess is the 1:1 toy-replica build by a fan for their kid which seems to have received some coverage, but I am not fully sure that it is as I think all references here are relatively superficial and of borderline reliability at best. At the end of the day, what we have here is fancruft mixed with trivia...

• Keeep. per discussion above. Subject article includes secondary references which meet WP:SIGCOV. Enough information included which show it meets WP:GNG too. TwinTurbo ( talk) 22:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep based on the sources above on the toy and replica versions which demonstrate some real world notability of the fictional vehicle. It's clearly not Millennium Falcon level of notability, but enough to pass the minimum standard in my opinion. Rhino131 ( talk) 02:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment in reply to a question on my talk page: I could have closed this as no consensus, but in my view there is a lot of general observations about toys and so forth, but not much discussion of the actual sources that establish (or don't) the notability of this topic. I hope that after the relisting the discussion will go into more detail about whether these sources are sufficiently in-depth and reliable. Sandstein 10:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Given your comments and the reasoning behind your decision, I am of the opinion that you should recuse yourself from either closing or further relisting this particular discussion, since you have already formed a view as to the subject matter's notability instead of following the emergent consensus. Haleth ( talk) 16:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep Toys based on a fictional concept are a real-world effect of said concept. As long as these toys don't have separate articles, they should be considered as a sub-topic of the concept which inspired them. If there are secondary sources discussing such toys, they should be included when considering if WP:GNG is fullfilled. In this case, I think there is enough coverage in secondary sources when taking together sources about the prop in the films and the toys (and I assume there's also plot-summary information for the land-speeder as it is in-universe), there is enough to keep this article.

Sorry, this was partly about toys again. Two additional secondary sources talking about how the landspeeder was filmed, which I think have not been discussed yet, are The Cinema of George Lucas and From Star Wars to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives. Daranios ( talk) 12:22, 1 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Current sources shows WP:GNG. SwashWafer ( talk) 16:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fancruft. Fails WP:GNG when looking at RS. LK ( talk) 04:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment, not just depicted in Lego, warhammer also has a "land speeder" (note the space to get around licencing?) ( see here) showing that it is not just a starwars/lego concept. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:07, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, in addition to sources provided previously in this afd, covered in numerous books that are held by muliple libraries ie. Star Wars: Complete Vehicles, The Moviemaking Magic of Star Wars. Ships + Battles, Learn How To Draw Star Wars: Droids & Vehicles, Star Wars: The Essential Guide To Vehicles and Vessels, Star Wars Encyclopedia Of Starfighters and Other Vehicles, Star Wars: Complete Cross-sections, Star Wars: The New Essential Guide To Vehicles and Vvessels, examples of them have been included in group exhibitions ie. Powerhouse Museum - Star Wars: where science meets imagination (p. 43, and Barbican Centre - The Darth Arts. Coolabahapple ( talk) 05:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Coolabahapple, All those Star Wars sources are licensed, which makes them not independent. And dependent sources are not helpful for establishing notability. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Piotrus, it almost reads like you'd really prefer that Star Wars itself wasn't notable, it would be so much more convenient in your crusade against what you see as a vast sea of cruft... But Star Wars is notable and it's tiresome to try to argue that Star Wars itself isn't. The landspeeder is one of the core concepts, a widely used and widely available in universe vehicle, from one of the most successful and most notable fictional universes there is... and it has lots of coverage in many sources. Sometimes trying to cut away notability with a thousand cuts (you've disputed every one of the myriad sources presented, with one technical objection after another) just doesn't pass the reasonableness test. As here. ++ Lar: t/ c 02:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep It's the closest to an iconic movie vehicle there is. "Licensed" sources do not stop them from also being independent sources - the DK books are indeed reliable secondary sources. A primary source is something coming direct from Disney, Lucasfilm, etc. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 15:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep I've read all the arguments above, and I find myself in the speedy keep camp. Timmccloud ( talk) 23:21, 5 February 2021 (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.