Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twi'lek


 * 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   redirected to List_of_Star_Wars_races_(P-T). Many of the arguments - on both sides of this debate - have no grounds in policy. However, it is abundantly clear that consensus is against retaining this as a standalone article. There is likely sufficient content at the redirect target, but the edit history here will be maintained behind the redirect for potential merging of information. Shereth 16:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Twi'lek
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

See also
 * Articles for deletion/Ssi-Ruuk
 * Articles for deletion/Gamorrean


 * Delete: only Star Wars fans are familiar with the subject. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Only opera fans are familiar with opera, only cricket fans are familiar with cricket. etc. Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Uh... fancruft?  Lady   Galaxy  22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fancruft is not a valid reason for deletion. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - No assertion of any notability from reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with List of Star Wars races (P-T) Umbralcorax (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable due to significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and as WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion.  Anything that gets any on topic Google news or especially Google books hits is notable by any reasonable standard.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Conveniently, Wikipedia has a standard by which notability can be judged, the general notability guideline. All I see there are requirements for significant independent secondary coverage, which this article lacks utterly. Protonk (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Entirely in-universe detail in the form of fictional background information and a character list which is only plot summary. No evidence this species is notable by having received substantial coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As indicated by the hits above, it has received substantial coverage from reliable sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of reliable sources and redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_races_(P-T). Do not merge any content, since entirety of article is uncited in-universe plot summary and trivia that wholly fails to offer any encyclopedic content. --EEMIV (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirectable articles do not require deletion discussions. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather delete this unencyclopedic content just to help prevent people undoing the redirect to restore cruft -- as continues to happen at River Tam, Jayne Cobb, Planet Express, etc. It's also been my (and Judgesurreal's) experience that a redirected article often is un-redirected by zealous fans and article-owners, leading to AfD down the line to settle things. So, yes, Judgesurreal could have just redirected (as he has done many times before), but I don't begrudge him "skipping" to AfD. If the underlying point is whether to retain the article history...well, there's nothing of encyclopedic value in this article now, so might as well ditch it. --EEMIV (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This encyclopedic content should be kept, especially since WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. Even redirects should actually be discussed on the talk page first.  Deletion is an extreme last resort when all else has been tried and failed.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that "it's cruft" is "never" a valid reason for deletion, especially when "it's cruft" is used as shorthand for "non-notable and lacks reliable sources" -- which I just did, with my "[it's] cruft" in my second note being a shorthand for "lack of reliable sources" in my first one. But this is a tangent better suited for a re-re-AfD of WP:CRUFT. And please don't summarize for me a "how-to" process for article (non-)deletion -- although I, too, often skip to AfD for pure cruft (used here as shortcut! don't get your gourds in a pie!), I'm no stranger to talk-page discussion and the like. But, perhaps I will heed your unnecessary input and maintain my ways by following the example you offered when you engaged in discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Fancruft before nominating that essay for deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am increasingly finding that use of cruft actually means that it is notable and has reliable sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, keep on processing things that way. I'll, uh, just be over there... --EEMIV (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have fun! -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Umbralcorax. Edward321 (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. The subject seems slightly notable, as several famous characters (Bib Fortuna, Oola) are members of this race, and there are some Google News and Google Books hits. But it doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. It should be merged and redirected to this list, as suggested above. 96T (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable, unorigninally researched fancruft. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per significant coverage in reliable sources such as Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Characters by Andy Mangels and Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Planets and Moons, and also multiple independently-written and independently-published fictional sources which involve the Twi'lek. DHowell (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, little or no notability outside the SW universe. More appropriate to a list or a specialist wiki such as Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2008 (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.