So the Wookieepedia:Notability policy isn't very specific at all regarding a lot of things, particularly the notability of OOU companies. I have been thinking about this for a bit with regards to companies that produce merchandise. For example, we have Hasbro, Kenner Products, Toys "R" Us, Palitoy, Sideshow Collectibles, Premium Collectibles Studio..., which I think there is a general consensus that those kinds of companies are notable. Other examples such as Funko and Mattel, which I created I think are notable, but I'm not sure how much a consensus there is to keep them, but I think that most would agree they are notable. Now, there are a lot of companies that I have not created articles for that I think are notable but I'm not sure if they are notable or not. I think it would be worth it to establish a consensus regarding which types of OOU companies are notable and which ones aren't so the situation can be clarified. For example, would things like Glasslite, Her Universe, Heroes & Villains or even The Coca-Cola Comapany (which has done several Star Wars campaigns) be notable, and what determines if a OOU company is notable or not.
In my opinion, I think it should be similar to OOU people. Every person who has the smallest role in producing a Star Wars product gets an article, I think that we can take a pretty broad stance on the notability of OOU companies. I would be in favor of every company that is mentioned as an official licensee in a source like Star Wars Insider, StarWars.com or other source to get an article (see Category:Companies on the Merchandise Wiki), but I don't think that will happen. However, if the consensus is to restrict OOU company notability in some way, what would be the extent and nature of the restrictions? ThrawnChiss7 
Assembly Cupola 17:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Discuss
- From my understanding, a lot of the companies are considered notable if they contributed to the lore, even if it's minimum, like how Funko has little text blurps/character bio on some of their products. Also, worth keeping in mind that Toys R Us was created not because of the fact that they sell toys, but rather the Star Wars comic exclusivity that happened. Pretty much wouldn't exist if it weren't for the comics. Then, allowing the creation of OOU companies as a whole can be a slippery slope, I feel. Gotta keep in mind that SW has merchandise all over the globe, Miniso and Popmart are the two companies that came up to mind immediately. Regarding companies that did advertisement campaigns, that can also be a slippery slope. There so many companies that have done ad campaigns with SW atp, I just dont see it being relevant for Wookieepedia's scope. Bonzane10
19:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- Do also wanna add that most, if not all, of the toy companies listed above produced some of the more distinct product, unlike the generic licensed toys/collectibles SW has a lot of nowadays. With some even adding new material to the lore as a whole. Bonzane10 19:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree that most articles for toy companies have notability, but for example Tomy's Star Wars Pullback Droid, doesn't seem to have any IU information whatsoever. Or for example the Jazwares' Star Wars: Micro Galaxy Squadron names are not considered canonical, and it doesn't have any IU information, but the company is still considered notable. How would this be different that creating an article, for Just Toys? ThrawnChiss7
Assembly Cupola 19:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
- The droid toy line has a bunch of 1stIDs, while Micro Galaxy Squadron—for the lack of better term—seems to be a rogue article/an outlier. It was created back in December of last year. Since we don't have any explicit policy against it, I suppose no one has taken a look into considering its notability. Bonzane10 03:48, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- The droid toy line has a bunch of 1stIDs, while Micro Galaxy Squadron—for the lack of better term—seems to be a rogue article/an outlier. It was created back in December of last year. Since we don't have any explicit policy against it, I suppose no one has taken a look into considering its notability. Bonzane10
- I agree that most articles for toy companies have notability, but for example Tomy's Star Wars Pullback Droid, doesn't seem to have any IU information whatsoever. Or for example the Jazwares' Star Wars: Micro Galaxy Squadron names are not considered canonical, and it doesn't have any IU information, but the company is still considered notable. How would this be different that creating an article, for Just Toys? ThrawnChiss7
- Do also wanna add that most, if not all, of the toy companies listed above produced some of the more distinct product, unlike the generic licensed toys/collectibles SW has a lot of nowadays. With some even adding new material to the lore as a whole. Bonzane10
- Tbh also kinda wanna say that there's a difference between more modern definitely-licensed or approved in some way ad campaigns and, say, a lot of older ad campaigns that may have had Star Wars themed elements but aren't licensed or have no proof of licensing. Policy currently expressly forbids articles on non-copyrighted media like fanworks and such, but I suppose doesn't disallow making pages for companies that produce non-copyrighted ads/media (non-copyrighted being explicitly so, not referring to the ambiguous Legends stuff). But anyway; don't really have a preference on companies that do something/anything licensed, but we should very much in my opinion continue to avoid companies producing non-copyrighted material since we also won't be covering that non-copyrighted material they produce.—spookywillowwtalk 02:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yea, that's definitely an issue for some of the older campaigns, I think we could limit company notability of this type to ones that are mentioned in official publications such as StarWars.com, Insider, etc. I think a company's Star Wars activities are mentioned in an official source, it's a pretty good indication that the company was/is a legitimate liscenee. ThrawnChiss7 Assembly Cupola 13:28, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yea, that's definitely an issue for some of the older campaigns, I think we could limit company notability of this type to ones that are mentioned in official publications such as StarWars.com, Insider, etc. I think a company's Star Wars activities are mentioned in an official source, it's a pretty good indication that the company was/is a legitimate liscenee. ThrawnChiss7