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.
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.
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.
DreamFocus18:16, 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. -
Presidentmantalk ·
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
KeepLists 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. –
sgeurekat•
c09:06, 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). —
siroχo09:20, 20 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.
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.
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.
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.
DreamFocus18:16, 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. -
Presidentmantalk ·
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
KeepLists 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. –
sgeurekat•
c09:06, 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). —
siroχo09:20, 20 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.