Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wookieepedia (5th 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   Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Peter Symonds ( talk ) 14:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wookieepedia
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Okay, this one is on the fence. There are a couple vague assertations of notability, such as Sci Fi Channel naming it "Site of the Week", and this decent writeup in Variety, but beyond that I'm finding absolutely 'no reliable sources. Source 1 is a trivial mention, the other sources are from The Force.net and don't look reliable, and I can't verify that it's the largest Wiki on Wikia at all. The last AfD brought up sources here, but they are almost entirely trivial, and several trivial sources < one non-trivial source. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Now before I see a storm of WP:ILIKEIT votes, I'd like to point out that WP:RS, following Wikipedia's policy, don't exist. Sources are either non-reliable or trivial, and therefore fail this by WP:WEB. D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Change to keep per sources found by Juliancolton and JJL. Might I point out, however, that TenPoundHammer has good reasoning behind this nomination, however, and that I would much prefer that there were no attacks on the nominator?  D ARTH P ANDA duel 14:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep modest visibility/notability in the relevant media; likely helps keep cruft away from Wikipedia. JJL (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Haha, even so, keeping cruft away from Wikipedia isn't really a deletion concern. D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, may not be incredibly important, but has references in notable places. Scapler (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Where? I'm open to convincing :D D ARTH P ANDA duel 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So am I. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Variety reference is enough. The Wikipedia policy on RS makes no ruling on a minimum number of sources. That, plus this has survived a whack of nominations in the past, with the most recent being basically a snowball keep only about 6 months ago. Even the nominator has said this one is "on the fence" for being nominated. The other sources may be considered trivial, but unless Wikipedia notability policy changed when I wasn't looking (and it might well have), all you need is one non-trivial RS and Variety is a pretty strong one for an entertainment-based topic. 23skidoo (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since when is one ref enough? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to inherent notability, this article is useful for internal purposes, as when comments are made along the lines that "there is more discussion on Wookiepedia" or "delete, this belongs on Wookiepedia." I also believe that in the absence of BLP or other supervening concerns, a sixth AfD nomination of the same article is unnecessarily disruptive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How the hell is this inherently notable? Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:WEBHOST? D ARTH P ANDA duel 02:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, if not only per the previous five nominations. The notability is definitely there, and I agree with Newyorkbrad regarding internal use. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is it? I don't see it. DON'T SAY IT'S NOTABLE UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE IT. JUST SAYING "IT'S NOTABLE" DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.   Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, since I can't turn down large, all-cap writing, here are some examples of reliable sources:, , , . It's amazing what a Google search can turn up sometimes. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment see also passing mentions here from a Chilean interview with Jimmy Wales, here  in a textbook (see ), and also in the NY Times . Google Scholar turns up some theses . It gets 309,000 ghits as well, e.g.  (blacklisted link). JJL (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, Per Juliancolton's statements above. This article's survived 4 AfD's. Give it up already... The article is definitely notable. V a n d a l i sm Destroyer        03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment- Wow, really? We're going through this again? I abstain, but seems lik something thats been through so many AFD's should at least be left alone for a while. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it has its notable third party references. Let it be already.  Dream Focus (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep additional reliable sources, as if the Variety article wasn't enough,this one and this one and this one are availible as well. Those not good enough, since they are web-only sources?  What about The Saint Paul Pioneer Press and the San Francisco Chronicle and Crain's Detroit Business.  While doing a blind google search turns up a lot of bloggy stuff that may swamp the reliable press, a little knowledge of how to use google properly (such as Google News) will weed out the crap and return real reliable sources on this topic.  Don't assume that because a first-page general google search turns up a lot of Blogs that there aren't reliable sources out there.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources turned up previously on this page are ample for WP:N Ray (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- Ray (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep as the site easily clears the notability threshold with on-subject coverage in Variety, the San Francisco Chronicle, and other completely independent sources. Add to that The Inquirer, CanMag, and Spanish television and more behind paywalls (including at least a couple of Associated Press articles) plus the fact that it appears to be the go-to example when journalists want to talk about a wiki other than Wikipedia add up, in my view, to very strong reasons to keep. - Dravecky (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not all of them are useful, but the additional sources provided in this AFD besides Variety provide reliable third-party coverage on the subject in a non-trivial manner which meets the first notability criterion. - Mgm|(talk) 10:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong/speedy keep with a side of WP:POINT - It's very hard to assume good faith on a fifth nomination, particularly when the article provides its own proof of notability. It forces one to wonder what crappy article got deleted to make him lash out at articles that are actually notable. -- Darth Culator (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous sources available. Edward321 (talk) 14:23, 9 December 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.