Forum:TC:Star Wars Aficionado

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. Imperators II^(Talk) 09:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars Aficionado (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

Based on my reading of WP:NFP, this doesn't pass notability. Star Wars Aficionado is mentioned and linked to in a SW.com article, but I wouldn't call that "extensive recognition or official endorsement." RogueWhistler (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete

1. RogueWhistler (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Lewisr (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

   Manoof (he/him/his) 02:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

3. I don't think that Wookieepedia citing it is a measure of notability under WP:NFP. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 03:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
4. Not extensive recognition. Rsand 30 (talk) 11:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Rsand.-ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 00:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. Aside from being the creator of the article, it was just created yesterday and Wookieepedia frequently cites it. Immi Thrax (she/her) 03:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
2. Having looked at this in a bit more depth, I think it is notable due to our recognising them as a reliable source, their mention on the website article noting they had a private dinner with Jeremy bulloch, Rinzler and co. They recognise and accept SWA's notability, so should we. Manoof (he/him/his) 03:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
3. While I agree that using it as a citation doesn't make it notable, Immi and Manoof make excellent points. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
4. To me, acknowledgement in the text of an article on StarWars.com is enough to make a fansite like this notable, and the range of interviews only adds to that. Ayrehead02 (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
5. Supreme Emperor ^Holocomm 10:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
6. As someone who as applied the NFP policy like a scalpel to excise a great deal of unnecessary content from fansites articles in the past, I find that applying the policy to the extend when we could not even document such ressource at least to display it's nature, extend, and seemingly apparent trustworthiness would be counterproductive to the didactic and educational purpose of Wookieepedia. NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 11:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
7. NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 11:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
8. Being linked to in a SW.com article does make it notable enough to keep. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 02:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
9. OOM 224 19:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
10. DarthRuiz30 (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
11. CT-1742 (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
12. —spookywilloww^talk 17:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• I haven't had time to compile them yet, but Aficionado has interviewed people such as: Stuart Freeborn, Nick Gillard, Howard G. Kazanjian, Cathy Munro, Alan Ruscoe, and Andrew Secombe. Also haven't been able to take a deep dive into their process of sourcing so very many rare photographs. Immi Thrax (she/her) 05:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • That's all great and they seem like an awesome resource, but that doesn't seem to work with our current policy, unless I'm missing something. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 06:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Never mind, just noticed that it says consensus can trump the policy. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 06:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Take a closer look. "That means even if a subject meets these requirements, the Wookieepedia community may still determine via consensus vote that it does not want to host a given article, in which case consensus trumps this site policy". (emphasis mine) clearly states that consesus trumps policy only when the Wookieepedia community "does not want to host a given article". -ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 00:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of that, I had just been confused as to how one could argue that the site falls under the policy but then realized that that is not the argument being made. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 01:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Policies be weird :P OOM 224 (he/him) 08:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)