Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Star Wars organizations


 * 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 no consensus - unfortunately, the interpretation of "indiscriminate collection of information" tends to be more subjective than, for example, interpreation of WP:V. Hence, we have here perfectly reasonable arguments on both sides and neither with sufficient support to be termed 'consensus'. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

List of minor Star Wars organizations

 * Delete. I believe that this "list" article merits deletion due to Wikipedia's policy that it is not an indiscriminate collection of information; specifically, that it is not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." The policy seems to indicate that if the list itself (not the entries comprising the list, but the actual list itself) is famous on its own standing, or contributed to the fame of the subject, it is acceptable to keep; I do not believe this list satisfies that corollary. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Big  top  ( tk | cb | em | ea ) 17:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not so much a list as a collection of small articles. Thus the "lists" argument for deletion doesn't really apply here, IMO. Probably rename to something like Minor Star Wars organizations, currently a redirect. Most of these are incredibly important. Black Sun, ExGal, the Bounty Hunter's Guild and CorSec, for example, have all been in a lot of hugely important novels. Black Sun was central to the whole Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire project, and has been featured in a variety of other sources as well. The Peace Brigade was a major part of the 19-book New Jedi Order series. The 181st was in Aaron Allston's X-wing novels, and various comics. These are a huge part of the Star Wars universe, and are critical to the plots of a wide variety of novels and video games. -LtNOWIS 01:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per LtNOWIS. BryanG(talk) 04:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with LtNOWIS. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if they are minor, they are not notable; lists of not notable things are also not notable, otherwise someone should just upload the telephone directory and call it List of minor telephone subscribers in the XXXX area. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I hope the closing admin really takes a hard look at the rationales being used for "keep" votes here. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? I think the reasons given by LtNOWIS are good and concise. They show that these organizations have played a part in a number of Star Wars novels, and are therefore not made-up fan fiction. They have not had mere mentions in the novels, but have been described. There are a number of people interested in Star Wars, and who might want to find such information. The fact that the organizations are minor means that we probably don't want individual articles on each organization, but as WP:FICT guidelines say about minor characters in major universes, we now have them altogether in a single nice organized article as they ought to be. LtNOWIS has made a fully relevant argument for this article's inclusion which I concur with. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep needs better sourcing but so do lots of articles. As Sjakkalle says  this is what the WP:FICT guideline calls for in these cases, merge otherwise nn articles into lists.  Eluchil404 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It is obvious from the comments above that, collectively, the information presented in this list is rather essential if you want to understand the Star Wars universe (a topic I'm no expert on, but read the comments and it's perfectly clear) and could - indeed, should, but that's for cleanup not AFD - be verified and referenced. At present, Wikipedia is split between a bunch of wikilumpers who say "small articles on small topics should be deleted! If they're important enough to keep but it's not possible to write a long article they should be stuck together in agglomerated articles!" and cite WP:FICT (amongst others) to help them, versus a bunch of wikisplitters who say "delete these horrid collective articles! If anything is worth keeping, it should be in a bunch of smaller, split-off articles!" and cite WP:LIST. This is the most unproductive type of argument imaginable - I really don't care whether we lump or split, but I hate to have to vote in AFDs to stop us losing content that clearly some people are finding relevant and useful, just because these two factions can't make their mind up... the bottom line is that content shouldn't be held to ransom at AFD in the fall-out between the battle of splitters and lumpers. Go and argue at some guideline talk pages, sort yourselves out, reach consensus, then come back and start AFDing whichever type of the articles (piddly or listy) you've decided to purge. Arguing about this on fragmented AFD listings while waving great big content-whacking axes isn't safe and is unlikely to lead to the sane and centralized debate this obviously needs.TheGrappler 08:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would disagree that one could get an accurate reflection of the importance of this article by reading the comments here. Editors of articles in this particular subject emigrate in mass to AfDs when one of their articles are threatened, regardless of notability guidelines.  Keep an eye out for Articles for deletion/List of colors of Jedis' socks in the original trilogy.  You also are misstating the support of my citing.  I'm not citing the WP:LIST guideline, I'm citing the WP:NOT policy.  If the content is deemed worthy of preserving, the various companies, if notable enough to the plot of whatever novel or film they came from, should be mentioned in said novel's or film's article.  But the WP:NOT policy states that Wikipedia is specifically not for "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics."  If this isn't a "list of loosely associated topics," I don't know what is, and just because people find it interesting isn't reason enough to keep it around. &mdash; Mike (talk &bull; contribs) 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Let them have their fun, since in the last LucasCruft Purge a year ago, many loose articles were voted to be bunched up together like this where they wouldn't cause too much of a problem. But now even these lists aren't safe? It's a good thing I decided to form another wiki back then. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's all a crock of bollocks. DeAlOrNoDeAl 82.25.23.38 20:22, 15 July 2006 (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.