Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars planets (A–B)


 * 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 Delete. In contrast to many other aspects of the Star Wars Universum, these lists lack even the slightest indication of out-of-universe notability. If somebody wants to copy this to Wookieepedia, I'll be happy to email them the contents. Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Star Wars planets (A–B)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced and completely fictious and overly long article written from an in-universe perspective. None of these locations have any real notability as all the notable planets are already listed at List of Star Wars planets. Nathan121212 (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Don't see any problem with this list, which is part of a series. Much of it is sourced, contrary to the nom's claim. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 *  Provisional Keep  there are about ten such articles detailing the planets by letter (A–B, C–D, E–G, H–J, K–L, M–N, O–Q, R–S, T–V, W–Z). Without commenting on the merits of having all ten of these articles, if this process is to take place they should all be nominated en mass, not just the one of them. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ nominated others. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no indication of notability for these individual fictional planets. Most of the entries are sourced solely (if at all) by the books in which they appear. It is doubtful that there would be much in the way of secondary sourcing available for many of them. Planets that do have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources should be included in the main list of planets, or have their own article as required. Further to all of this much of the article is written "in universe", and while correctable, I don't see the point given the lack of secondary sourcing.  There are alternative outlets for such extensive lists of planets, which I am sure already exist. --kelapstick(bainuu) 17:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, which states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This means that topics about fictional elements (in this case, planets) should be covered in secondary sources. The Star Wars novels and the non-independent guides cannot be considered secondary sources for listing the planets. This A-B subset (and the other subsets) is just indiscriminately listing every planet that appears in the fictional universe. I support List of Star Wars planets, limited to the ones that have been critiqued in secondary sources (most likely the ones in the films). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an example of a secondary source covering planets seen in Star Wars. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also worth noting that WP:INDISCRIMINATE points to WP:WAF, which says, "Wikipedia articles should describe fiction and fictional elements from the perspective of the real world, not from the perspective of the fiction itself." This is not being done here; it is just in-universe content without any independent commentary on it. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that this nomination is for all ten of the planets lists. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Check out WP:BUNDLE so the other lists can be included appropriately. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have listed them here. Can you please assist me with adding the template to the other articles as I am currently editing via mobile. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have added the template to the other list articles. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination claimed that the A-B page was unsourced when it actually had 27 references. See WP:SK: "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question." Andrew (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * None of these references are secondary sources, which are needed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE (see my comment above). One cannot put together primary and non-independent sources to claim that an article about a fictional element is notable. Notability depends on secondary sources. Please note that List of Star Wars planets links to Wookieepedia, where in-universe content (which is what we have here in contravention of WP:WAF) is best housed. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 00:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Just for clarification: I meant the article had too few reliable sources. Most of these articles are sourced to fiction books and first party sources. I said unsourced in error. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Four secondary sources (i.e., published independently by a third party) for a list of this type is GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But the secondary sources are sources of information for only a few planets. They are not notable enough to stand alone if we were to remove all the info sourced form unreliable sources. Nathan121212 (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * These are not secondary sources independent from the franchise. The book The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons is published by LucasBooks. Also, WP:GAMEGUIDE says to "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right", and this applies to planets. Basically, game guides could supplement a passage about a notable planet, but they do not count as secondary sources toward establishing notability. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CSC #2 which explicitly allows this list given the above delete arguments that every list member "fails the notability criteria." This list goes very far beyond being only game related, so WP:GAMEGUIDE is not at all applicable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That guideline also states, "However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." Here we have hundreds of entries of indiscriminate planets, so list of Star Wars planets can focus on those actually mentioned in independent sources, like the National Geographic one I linked above. In-universe content should not be outweighing independent commentary; WP:WAF says, "Real-world perspective is not an optional quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." That perspective needs to have more than just in-universe content. That is what Wookieepedia is suitable for. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This could be included in the main list article to basically tell readers that Wookieepedia goes into detail about planets. An external link would be available, and readers can become accustomed to Wookieepedia as a source for in-universe content. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. These articles date back to an earlier period in Wikipedia's history, when we had very loose inclusion criteria.  Back then, it was still widely accepted that Wikipedia was the "sum of all human knowledge", including intrawiki fan sites for major franchises.  Although interesting to fans, it is far too indiscriminate for Wikipedia, and it belongs on Wikia, which welcomes in-universe writing and non-independent sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think WP:OBTOP, WP:OBSCURE and WP:BELONG have some applicability here. Yes, there is a lot of in-universe, but there is also a good bit of out of universe material. Unfortunately, most of the editors who would have improved the article(s) to meet current guidelines have long since been all but forcibly driven away from editing Wikipedia. We need many more editors; not the current death spiral. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OBSCURE is an essay that, in terms of in-universe content, does not correspond with Wikipedia's policy of not being an indiscriminate collection of information. The policy states, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary." This indicates the need for emphasis on secondary sources providing independent commentary on the subject matter. There is no abundance of "out-of-universe material" that is not simply identifying the primary sources in which a fictional planet appears. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 02:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete the lot - All this crap belongs on some "fan site" like Wikia. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  03:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest articulating your argument further, otherwise it falls in the WP:BELONG category. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less, Some things just belong elsewhere and imho this is one of them, If my argument falls in the "Belong" category then I'm absolutely chuffed!.... – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per not violating policy being sourcable and meeting WP:SALAT. With respects, while certainly information in Wikipedia could be included outside these pages, "crap" is not an argument against a list article here. I find mass nominations to be unhelpful, specially when all nominated are then judged by addressable weakness in on or two.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no independent sourcing here that vouches for the vast majority of the content, which is simply descriptions of the planets from primary sources. WP:SALAT says, "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists." The primary-source content far outweighs any secondary-source content that may be available (and would be focused on the so-called "major" planets). Per WP:CSC #3, "If a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This is why I advocate keeping list of Star Wars planets (not up for AfD here); it is definitely worth identifying those that have been covered in secondary sources (typically the film ones) and referencing both primary and secondary sources for each planet in their own section. Unfortunately, most of the planets across all these subset articles do not have any secondary sourcing and thus go against WP:INDISCRIMINATE's definition of how fiction is treated in an encyclopedic manner (along with WP:WAF, which gets more specific, as I explained above). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , I respectfully disagree with your assessment regarding mass nominations. While sometimes (usually) unhelpful, in this case it is the only way a nomination would make sense. It would not make sense to delete (or nominate for deletion) planets A-B, but keep (or not nominate) the remainder. Why would A-B be any less noteworthy than C-D, or any other for that matter? It certainly doesn't make sense to have the same discussion across ten different AfD pages.  A series of lists organized in this manner only makes sense if it is all or nothing, which is the way a deletion discussion on the matter should be conducted.  I do however agree with your assessment that general "this is crap" and "I don't like it" style arguments are not helpful, and are contrary to what we would expect in an AfD discussion.  As Erik says (and I did above), the planets with significant, third party sources, should either have their own articles (as does Alderaan for example), or are covered in List of Star Wars planets. It should be noted that many of the planets that do have articles are poorly sourced and generally written in-universe as well (which of course is grounds for improvement, not deletion). I personally don't see the need to document every minute detail of the expanded Star Wars universe. If the only sourcing available is the books in which they appear, the General Notability Guidelines agree with me. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * True, I find WP:DONTLIKEIT arguments to be decidedly unhelpful. My issue with this mass nomination is that it requires that the several hundred grouped topics be searched, and the several hundred included refs be checked. This would almost call for 4 or 5 mandatory relistings to allow that quantity of work to be done.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete All. There aren't enough reliable sources to make viable articles about these fictional planets and worlds. We end up having an indiscriminate collection here, unable to tell notable planets from planets which were mentioned once in some obscure pulp-fiction book which supports the fictional universe. The in-universe content would be fine if it were supported by out-of-universe references (academic study or critical analysis, for example) but that just doesn't happen. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You wish to delete all because of issues with some of the listed planets? Why not simply propose someone go through the 300+ planets listed and delete those unsourced?  Would you also wish deletion of the blue-linked planets on the lists because they are also in-universe? As they are all fictional elements, why not simply merge and redirect them all to the Star wars article.... the one place where these fictional elements might merit any mention. Or we could just as simply nominate every article even remotely related to Star Wars, as every part of the series is fiction or based on fiction, which raises the question "just what part of Star Wars is not WP:INUNIVERSE so as to meet WP:Real world?"  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete all. I picked one of these articles at random (List of Star Wars planets (O–Q)) and I tried to see what would happen if I deleted everything without a citation or where the citation is only to primary material (e.g., a planet is mentioned in a novel and the novel is cited as the source). Not a single entry remained. Planets with sufficient out--of-universe references can have their own articles: I don't feel lists of this nature work on Wikipedia -- they are better served by a Star Wars wiki. Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I went through List of Star Wars planets (M–N) next. I've deleted 80% of the article for having no reliable, secondary sources. What's left is left almost entirely because of citations to Daniel Wallace and Scott Kolins' "The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons (Star Wars)" (1996). I don't know whether that constitutes a reliable, secondary source. If it is, it is still only a single source and if what's left in the article is just a regurgitation of that one source, then that's not appropriate. So I still say delete them all. Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment And then I tried List of Star Wars planets (W–Z): nothing there is a reliable, secondary source. I've deleted all but the first entry. Bondegezou (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: I could see an argument for cutting down the lists and merging them into a single list (rather than having the numerous lists there currently are), but not for cutting all this material entirely. A list does not have to prove individual notability for each item in the list so long as the main subject itself is notable. kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it does not warrant this extensive in-universe content. See my comment here. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I've been going through these articles today to try and improve them, should they be kept. Once you've hacked away all the obviously unsourced and un-secondary-sourced material, there's not much less. The remainder would certainly fit onto a single list. If we start hacking away anything that doesn't have independent secondary sourcing, I don't know that there will be anything left. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and restore all recently deleted list items per WP:CSC #2. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You already said to "Keep" above (and as seen here), and your arguments were refuted. Please redact this repeat. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * - I've struck your comment since Erik's correct - You can't vote twice. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I looked back and thought I had only made a previous comment. I completely forgot my first !vote two weeks ago. I would gladly have redacted it, but too late now. BTW, I do not concede that any argument has refuted anything I said. I simply have no interested in arguing endlessly. I believe what I said and said what I meant. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries we all mistakes - I've done it plenty of times :), Cheers, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  02:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Given that WP:CSC #2 has been stated as a keep reason (regardless of who believes they have refuted it), I think it is improper to remove any items from any of the lists based on notability until this AfD has been closed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have been working on these articles while the AfD is going on and have deleted numerous list items. I have not done this on the basis of notability: rather, I have deleted material that is not supported by secondary, reliable sources. I have done this under WP:V. I quote: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I hope that explains my approach and is satisfactory to other editors. My aim is to (a) improve articles as per basic Wikipedia policy; and (b) see what is left having done that in order to inform this AfD discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 09:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PSTS and WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, a primary source is perfectly acceptable as the only source for actual "facts" such as planet x is found on page y of book z about universe w. Given that, every single planet listed has a primary source; some actually cited while many others need the citation added. That is all that is needed to meet WP:V. Notability for each planet is not required per WP:CSC #2; notability only applies to the list itself. Either the policy and the explaining essay mean what they say or they need to be rewritten. I believe they mean what they say. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies then, VMS Mosaic. I have been over-zealous with some edits. Some of the material I deleted had no citations: I take it we are agreed that that can be deleted under WP:V. Some had primary sources. Feel free to revert my edits wholesale, or go through and just return those with primary sources. If I have time, I will do some more work on the articles. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is not abundant secondary sourcing about planets in the Star Wars fictional universe to warrant splitting a Wikipedia list article into subsets. Content from primary sources should not outweigh content from secondary sources, so a single list can be appropriate. Nobody here has argued against list of Star Wars planets; they have argued against the high level of detail from primary sources in the light of nearly no detail from secondary sources. 's removal of this level of detail is appropriate. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My issue was with removing entire entries. If an entry exists within the SW universe, then it by definition has at least one primary source available. Yes, the cites and/or citation needed tags need to be added. Yes, some excessive detail, in particular any analysis or detail not supported by primary (or secondary) sources, can be removed. I have no issue with combining into fewer articles as long as WP:TOOLONG doesn't come into play. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No one has offerred any explanation of why we need two competing lists. The implication is that list of Star Wars planets represents the planets that are actually notable and this longer list is the "deep fandom" stuff. There is no ban on the use of primary sources! To be useful, a list needs to be of reasonable length, which this ten-part monstrosity is not. Wookiepedia collects the Star Wars trivia. Claimsworth (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete As above- Moudul hasan (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete All - Contrary to Schmidt's  assertion above, it fails WP:SALAT because it epitomises What Wikipedia is not. Some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. A list like this one needs to explain why it contributes to the state of human knowledge. Additionally, per nom. there is grossly inadequate citation to reliable secondary sources for individual entries and their content (or even reliable sources); and per editor Claimsworth, the list of Star Wars planets covers the notable ground. --Bejnar (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all- Excessively lengthy, in-universe fancruft sourced only to the works of fiction themselves (and poorly, at that). We've already got a list of star wars planets, and there is no need for a second ten-volume repetition. Reyk  YO!  01:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Justified by it being about a major work of fiction. Separate articles about each of them is what would be excessive. But a mere list is nnot undue coverage, or inappropiate. This is talking about a fictional universe, so sources from the fiction are sufficient. Asking ofr deletion oin the ground of it being "fictious" is a limitation of the role of WP, which talks about notable fiction in the same fdetail as other notable subjects.  DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment "Star Wars" is a major work of fiction, but most of these entries are from spin-off novels or levels in video games, which I don't feel can be called major works of fiction. Bondegezou (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That, and the requirement for reliable independent sources does not disappear just because the article is about a work of fiction. Reyk  YO!  11:54, 13 October 2014 (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.