Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle droid (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 redirect to Droid (Star Wars). As it's now called. Content can be merged from history subject to editorial consensus.  Sandstein  12:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

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

Non-secondary-sourced fancruft that fails WP:GNG. As a piece of fictional minutia, it is not notable enough to merit its own article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Droid (robot). There's good information here, but it can be moved there and sourced properly.  Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:00, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: The notability guideline requires reliable, independent sources, for which this article has one. —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  16:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Droid (robot). Much of this content is more suited for Wikia, but some of it is definitely salvageable. Although battle droids are certainly a notable aspect of Star Wars, there's just not enough real world information to quite justify extended coverage through a separate article.— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge with Droid (robot) as above, as a valid option rather than deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, a fine article with nothing wrong with it. Per Articles for deletion/Battle droid, the 2008 deletion request (please read the comments there). Deletion is not the way to go with pages like this, or even merged to another. A stand-alone page for this topic does no harm and does much good for readers who happen to be looking for it or run across it. Can we close down AfD for a month (or two) for repairs? Randy Kryn (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You could always work on your proposed version in draft.— Mythdon ( talk / contribs ) 23:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure these improvements couldn't be added to Droid (Star Wars) instead? It is very dubious that this topic would merit a completely separate article, especially given the lack of reliable sourcing in this one. Also, Wikipedia standards have changed greatly since 2008 and fancruft is much less tolerated than it was then. I've nominated many crufty articles for deletion that had a circa-2008 discussion that went nowhere.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This RfD was put up on October 3, but had not been listed on the WikiProject: Star Wars talk page, which I did earlier. And were the editors who participated in the first RfD in 2008 notified? Maybe some of them are still around. Aren't these steps normal or requested in RfD's? Seems a minimum to do for an long-time article which survived a well-debated RfD (please read the discussion, linked above, for more in-depth 'Keep' viewpoints). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually it's just the creator and the relevant WikiProject's that get notified, both from my experience and what I've observed.— Mythdon 02:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, and the Star Wars wikiproject was not notified, I would think the clock should be started over and this request relisted. This discussion contains nothing like the key arguments put forward by the 'Keepers' in 2008, a discussion which probably should be seen as precedent in this case and required reading for anyone wanting to see both sides here. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That'll be up to the discretion of the one closing this discussion. Just because there were arguments for keep then doesn't mean anything since Wikipedia standards change over 10 years, as do issues concerning the article. Also keep in mind the last discussion was closed as no consensus. Those only default to keep because there isn't a clear consensus to delete/merge/whatever, not because they have good keep arguments. Articles can and have been renominated for deletion simply because of "no consensus" at the first AFD. There has to have been improvement since the previous AFD if you want to avoid a delete or merge outcome.— Mythdon 03:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not being pedantic, but this is an AFD, not an RFD; are you sure you're talking about the correct discussion? —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  15:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.