Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bantha (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The result was nomination withdrawn. J I P &#124; Talk 15:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Bantha
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's a Star Wars topics, so Rescue Squadron and affiliated fanboys, get ready :> Anyway, it's a minor Star War species that seems to fail GNG/NFICTION. As everything related to SW, there are mentions in passing - several reliable sources are present, but they don't discuss this fantasy race per se, only mention in passing in one sentence or so. Then there is a news piece about the real elephant used in original Star Wars movie dying. Now, since I did mention the Rescue Squadron (and it's not like I mind saving articles, if it can be done), I'll point out to https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Bantha#Behind_the_scenes - this section is the essence of what can be said about this that goes beyond PLOT. But in the end, this is IMHO Star Wars trivia - the film wanted an elephant-like monster, they did with a real elephant, a cute little story about filming of the original movie, but it does not make the fictional race notable. This incident can be discussed perhaps in some article about making of the SW original movie, but do we need a separate article for this prop (because the fictional race clearly fails GNG, so let's face it, it's about a prop, not a sf creature)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures. Of the available sources, they are either heavily 'in-universe' type sources, or else extremely trivial/passing coverage. There is not nearly enough to offer standalone notability, and there is a perfectly logical redirect option. Hugsyrup 08:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep When I saw the AFD I assumed this article would be all plot summary, as is usually the case in situations like this, but not only is it from a real-world perspective, it is cited by verifiable secondary reliable sources, which speak to the subject's notability. I also suspect the article could be expanded upon and fleshed out further, so I think it's worth keeping. It's also worth pointing out there was a previous AFD for this subject that resulted in a keep after the article was revised to reflect its notability and a consensus was reached to keep it, and although that certainly doesn't mean we can't discuss this again in AFD, I'll just note that notability is not temporary, so if the subject was notable back then, it's still notable now. — Hunter Kahn 14:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I will say, though, that there are some very strange referencing issues with this article as it stood when the AFD was announced. I'm planning to make a few edits/improvements and will try to clean that up. I've fixed the referencing issues now, and I've started some expansions to the article, including the addition of "Biology and appearance", "Concept and creation", and "Reception" sections, as well as expansions to the Production section. I'll add that in my brief amount of editing here I've seen there are many more reliable sources out there that could be used to expand this article. I honestly haven't even scratched the surface yet. I'll try to expand it a bit more before this AFD is through, but my keep vote stands, and if anything I feel even more strongly about it. — Hunter Kahn</b> 16:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * HK, whether it's kept or not, I have to say this looks MUCH better than what I nominated a day ago: . I will have to review the sources etc. when I have time so consider whether this should be withdrawn or not, right now I have no opinion except it is much longer (and with refs). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have plans for further additions, and there are some other books and offline source I'm hoping to hunt down at some libraries and/or bookstores eventually. If the article is kept, I might try to keep improving it up to GA status... — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 18:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Originally closed as a redirect but I was asked to reconsider by some editors involved since the article has been expanded since the nom. Relisting in order to get a further input and to stay neutral on my side regarding the final outcome.
 * Keep and I am not a Star Wars fan. The nominator seems to equate fans of anything as a lower breed of editor going by his adhoms when the reality is that much of Wikipedia was built by fans whether they be fans of classical music, James Bond films, European history, the renaissance and so on and so on. In this case there is plenty of real world content reliably referenced and the article is being actively improved as described above so to delete it would be dogmatic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, While the article has a plethora of sources, they are either only brief mentions, are not independent, or are 'top x' lists. As it stands, this article does not pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk 07:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not entirely accurate. Only a few are lists and only one (the StarWars.com source) could be argued to be non-independent, and many if not most of the other sources (among the books and news articles) go well beyond brief mentions. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 12:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - I was surprised to discover an article on such an arcane piece of popular culture, but even more surprised that it was actually half-decent, and actually somewhat informative on the use of animals in cinema. I've not checked the sources, but prima facie they seem reasonable. (Full disclosure: I cannot reasonably dispute the charge that I am a Star Wars fan.) —P LUMBAGO 13:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per .  Mini  apolis  23:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect - The topic deserves to be mentioned somewhere, but the reception is quite weak for a stand alone. List of Star Wars creatures is currently a very poor article in itself, but I think it could be heavily refocused into a more real-world based topic discussing only those that have enough real world attention. Some of the sources would be worth including there. TTN (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope it's been noted that the article has recently been undergoing expansions since this AFD began, and that I've committed to continuing those efforts if it's not deleted, hopefully to GA status. I also want to note that I haven't put much focus on the Reception status yet; I wanted to start with the other sections because I think they are a better indication of the subject's notability. Anybody could fill an article like this with a lengthy Reception section just by quoting review blurbs or whatever. I expect the Reception to be expanded as part of my efforts, as well as the rest of the article... — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 00:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to Hunter Kahn's well-sourced and interesting additions. Toughpigs (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures, since it already exists there. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to show they pass notability criteria. Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 12:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. Evidently some scholarly and journalistic interest; it's not just fanzines and blogs. Discussion in The Science of Star Wars and the various respectable newspapers cited are both good. Josh Milburn (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Star Wars creatures per TTN and others. It would be much more appropriate as part of the list, which is potentially notable.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC) Withdraw. That's how to write about fictional content. My hats off to HK. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Better than most. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Plenty of references found. J I P  &#124; Talk 20:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect per User:Hugsyrup.--Darwinek (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Question for those voting to redirect: As I've indicated, I've done some substantial edits and additions to this article compared to how it looked when this AFD began. Some of it is about the fictional character, but much of it is also real-world perspective, such as concept/creation, design, filming/production, critical reception, etc. If this were to be redirected, what do you suggest happens to all this new content? Should it be merged with the list article, or simply deleted altogether? It seems to me that neither options makes sense, as the latter would be the unnecessary removal of content cited by reliable sources, and the former would make the Bantha's entry on the list too long and would warrant a WP:SPINOFF back to the main article anyway. Wouldn't it make more sense to just keep the article where it is? — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hunter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Kahn</b> 02:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep These sorts of articles are often just WP:FANCRUFT. But this article is actually quite solid, and built on a whopping 82 sources. There is a lot of real world refs, not just in universe stuff. I reject the trivia argument, and see no other good reason to delete it. I also think that redirecting is a poor choice, as that would make a WP:COATRACK. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An excessive merge could lead to a coatrack, although given that WP:COATRACK is primarily concerned with pushing POVs, it’s rather hard to imagine the same problem arising by simply merging content about a Star Wars creature to a list of Star Wars creatures. But that’s by the by, because we’re talking about a redirect and I simply don’t see how you can argue that a redirect creates a coatrack article. If, subsequently, the list has excessive Bantha-related content added to it, then that can be dealt with on that page, in the normal way. <i style="background-color: Blue; color:#FFE">Hug</i>syrup 08:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oops bad wording on my part, I meant to say merge not redirect. But I also think a redirect would be poor. This article is currently well written and sourced, and I believe meets GNG. The proposed redirect is to a paragraph that is quite questionable. I don't see how redirecting to something that is of worse quality helps to improve the encyclopedia. Captain Eek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect if and only if a corresponding section is included somewhere.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 *  Keep Whatever it’s state at the start of the AfD, this article has developed into a well-written article with many reliable sources. A solid keep per WP:HEY. —  17:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.