Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars spacecraft


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  OxonAlex    - talk  04:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Star Wars spacecraft

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same problem:

This list of spacecraft is entirely referenced to WP:PRIMARY sources, violating the rule "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." They have been this way since circa 2006 without improvement. The majority of craft fail any standards for Wikipedia inclusion and are better off in Wikia. Note that this is not saying that a list of Star Wars spacecraft can never be notable, but WP:TNT clearly applies here. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep List of Star Wars spacecraft Six things listed have their own article making it a valid list article. There are currently two additional blue links that just link back here.  A lot of the things listed formerly had their own articles but that information was merged here.   D r e a m Focus  21:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * List of Star Wars starfighters had four links to other articles. Perhaps that could be merged with the spacecraft list.
 * List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles has four articles linked to: Landspeeder, Sandcrawler, Walker (Star Wars), Speeder bike. How much coverage do these vehicles get in reliable sources?  No comment on this one yet.   D r e a m Focus  21:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If we go by properly referenced, obviously notable articles and not just anything someone saw fit to make an article of, there are only three, Death Star, Millennium Falcon and TIE Fighter. Death Star is a space station, not a ship, so it shouldn't even be on the list at all. Two valid articles does not an entire list make.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ditto for the ground vehicles list, I'd say that notability is satisfied for only Sandcrawler and possibly Walker, though it may have to be renamed and pared down to focus on the AT-AT, which is by far the most well-known.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If six Wikipedia articles exist that it links to, its a valid list article no matter what you think of those articles. And the Death Star is a spaceship, it moving through space, hyperdrive to various solar systems.  It was never designed to be a stationary object as a space station is, but instead to move through space as a spaceship.   D r e a m Focus  23:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.... this seems pretty definitive if you ask me. And that's 4 articles spread throughout 3 lists. I think that you could probably recreate List of Star Wars vehicles if you believe you can make a properly referenced list, although my stance has not changed on the over-specific ones nominated.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It can be both. And its 14 links to articles across three list unless you manage to get all of them deleted.   D r e a m Focus  04:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of those are inter-article links. Anyway, I don't see how having some valid entries proves anything. My argument is that the article is unsalvageable - any attempt to trim or prune to only the notable entries will likely be met by a revert, as evidenced by the debate on what ship is notable or not on this very page. Anyone can see that the article has a dearth of secondary sources (no pun intended).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  21:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep the Star Wars machines and spacecraft are a major part of pop culture. The fact that the NY Times does not write about individual spacecraft of a Science fiction franchise should not trouble us. Many fandom sites, and some WP:RS write about these crafts. Red Bull Title Max The Mirror The Telegraph There are even books devoted to the subject like: Incredible Cross-Sections of Star Wars: The Ultimate Guide to Star Wars Vehicles and Spacecraft. The list is here to serve our readers and it is relevant. If the nominator is troubled by the fact that there are not more articles on the individual craft, they should be created. Lightburst (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redbull.com is a reliable source now? It seems like you are throwing out whatever random thing you can find without checking for accuracy or reliablilty. The cross-section book is officially licensed and is a primary source.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I did not claim that Redbull was a reliable source. Apologies if you read it that way. I stated: Many fandom sites, and some WP:RS write about these crafts.


 * Keep per Lightburst. - ZLEA T\C 12:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think all three of these lists could be and should be improved upon and expanded, with added citations from reliable sources. But just because the articles need work doesn't mean they should be deleted; there is no deadline for such improvements. Some individual items on each of these lists may not be notable or worthy of inclusion, but if that's the case, they should be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the list's talk page, rather than just throwing away the entire lists. Some of these are extremely obviously notable (X-Wing, TIE fighter, Trade Federation battleship, snowspeeder, etc.) and others that some would assume are non-notable I suspect reliable sources could be easily found for if effort were put into it. As an experiment, I picked one at random that didn't necessarily seem immediately notable -- the ARC-170 -- and with minimal effort I found on the Newsbank database such sources as The Daily Telegraph, BusinessWire, The Straits Times, The Courier Mail, the Herald Sun, The Courier Mail, The Sudbury Star, The Tribune (Welland, Ontario), etc. (I can't share Newsbank stories online but could provide them upon request if necessary.) I imagine efforts to source, clean up, and expand most of these list entries would be successful. And last but not least, lists like this are useful because it prevents people from making separate standalone Wikipedia articles for every single spacecraft or vehicle in Star Wars; often when such articles surface, the suggestion is to merge them to a list like this. There are numerous reasons these lists should be kept. — Hunter <b style="color:#595454">Ka</b><b style="color:#595454">hn</b> 18:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume you are willing to draftify/userfy the lists until they are fixed then? While there is no deadline on Wikipedia, saying that an article might eventually be fixed at some unspecified point in the future, by some person yet to exist, is not really an argument.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your vague threat that these lists should be deleted unless I personally am willing to improve them is pretty much exactly the behavior the WP:DEADLINE essay cautions against. — <b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b><b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b> <b style="color:#595454">Ka</b><b style="color:#595454">hn</b> 19:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep all, I don't see many problems really with the articles, they could do with being improved and not deleting. Govvy (talk) 09:24, 16 August 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.