Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wookieepedia (4th 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 speedy keep, no new reasoning for deletion given beyond notability claims which have been discussed repeatedly before and almost unanimously rejected. Stormie (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wookieepedia

Wookieepedia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The subject of this article lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable publications, and thus fails WP:WEB as well as WP:N, heavily relying on primary sources for content. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for the reasons in my nomination above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: The sources here demonstrate there's sufficient coverage to pass WP:WEB. That they not been used in the article is a content issue -- the subject itself is notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I cannot access that link for some reason, might I suggest you integrate whatever reliable sources are available into the actual Wikipedia article for consideration? Thank you, Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep... and expand references found on the site ...based on the references cited by Wookieepedia. Why does it keep getting nominated? Is there bias present here??? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC) added cmts - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can only speak for myself, and this article continues to fail WP:WEB and notability guidelines, hence the nomination. If this cannot be resolved within the week, I would not be surprised if an administrator saw fit to delete it. The {{Refimprove|date=April 2007}} request has been sitting there since... Well, see for yourself. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: The previous three AFD nominations resulted in a keep consensus. At this point, should it not have become more notable now? Notability is not strictly held to WP:WEB, but WP:NOTE mentions multiple nontrivial mentions in notable sources, which exist on the above-linked Wookieepedia page by Quasirandom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • As we continue this conversation, the article continues to fail both WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. If I could access the link that Quasirandom provided I would fix the article myself. So where are the multiple non-trivial mentions? The nominations from a year+ ago do not address this problem, and the verifiability issues remain outstanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • So we fix it; we don't nominate for deletion. The Wookieepedia references are now on the article talk page. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Are these the links you were referring to? They all appear to be passing, trivial mentions. Which third party publication is expressly about Wookieepedia? I didn't see a single one. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Please Google it before wasting everyone's time. --Explodicle (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply Which of the references returned in this link are nontrivial? Theforce.net is a fansite...A notable fansite that is officially aknowledged, but still, is that sufficient? The other links appear to be trivial or passing references. -Verdatum (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Variety? SF Chronicle, St. Paul Pioneer? Keep, notability proven. Corvus cornix_talk 18:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. For the purposes of covering a wiki on canon and fanon, I think fansites devoted to the work in question are fine. Apart from the references in the article, Wookiepedia maintains a list of things that reference it. The list is substantial and contains enough traditional RS (Time, CSPan, Scifi.com, New York Times, TimesOnline) to warrant keeping it, even if they are trivial mentions. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that the mentions are all trivial, but collectively I feel they satisfy any notability concerns. (jarbarf) (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep This is the FOURTH time that TPTB at Wikipedia have attempted to axe this page. I suspect that this is a case os institutional snobbishness. The ARTICLE ITSELF certainly meets the notability test. The problem, rather, is that some Wikipediains are offended that their pet project isn't the only game in town. (Pardon the mixed metaphor.) I have a news flash for you: Wikipedia is not the world's only online encyclopedia. Eliminating references to others via AFD wlll not make those outlets go away. Trasel (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable as a website and specialized resource. Article facts easily verified. John Nevard (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I don't share Trasel's suspicions about the motives for yet another AfD listing, I do believe that repeatedly re-listing the same article, without a showing of significantly changed circumstances, is a questionable practice. JamesMLane t c 10:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, if only for the name. Also, out of principle, since I don't think articles that have passed several AfDs should be relisted without a significant new deletion reason. And it does seem to be a notable site, per links in the article and numerous Google News hits. Klausness (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't think that an article like this is necessary on Wikipedia, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to keep it. It could be longer, though. C Teng 21:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Wikipedia is not paper. WP:WEB and WP:N are our slaves, not our masters. Besides, Wookieepedia has been covered by Variety[1], SciFi.com[2], The New York Times[3], Howard Stern[4], and TimesOnline[5]. And the nominator appears to have an improper username. --Pixelface (talk) 09:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, what appears improper about the username? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a variation of the slang term "cock block". I'll let you search Wiktionary or Urban Dictionary for it. --Pixelface (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, okay, the user page is also somewhat of a concern, i.e. what is the point message there with "not censored" image? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as plenty of references and fairly evidence consensus suggests this site is notable by our standards. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:N by having enough reliable sources. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now. If deemed necessary, at some point in the future all the articles on wikis hosted by Wikia could be merged. However, I'm not aware of a convincing rationale to delete the content. PhilKnight (talk) 02:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. How many more times is this going to be nominated, anyway? - Sikon (talk) 12:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Oh, get off it already. You knew the outcome of this vote before you ever nominated the article. Glaug-Eldare (talk) 12:33, 22 May 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.