Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Theory

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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Theory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see enough depth-of-coverage to meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. The person hasn't received significant coverage. Nemov (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nemov (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It clearly passes the general notability guidelines. https://www.newsweek.com/star-wars-theory-disney-youtube-claim-copyright-reddit-1293172 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/star-wars-theory-madness-running-galaxys-youtube-rise-skywalker/ https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/star-wars-theory-pablo-hidalgo-luke-skywalker-1234875850/ and other sources are referenced in the article already. Dream Focus 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are millions of YouTube channels. Rightly most are not notable. A few are GNG, as determined by coverage in reliable sources. This channel has non-trivial coverage in multiple sources over an extended period, including in Canada, Britain and the US. This is unusual for a YouTube channel. -- GreenC 19:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nemov, I believe the article was prodded, not nominated for deletion, meaning there was no discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC):Bbb23Thanks for the clarification. - Nemov (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a little complicated but the article was PROD'd and deleted. After that, another editor created their own version of it which was speedy deleted by Bbb23. Dream Focus asked for the page that was PROD'd to be restored, which is permissible, so I restored the version that had been PROD'd minus the recent edits. The fact that they were not notified was an unfortunate oversight but not the reason for page restoration. I have removed PROD tags from other articles if the page tagger did not notify the page creator but it wasn't a factor in this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bbb23, thanks for the clarification. Nemov (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dream. An easy WP:GNG pass per extensive coverage in reliable sources. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just don't see the depth of coverage here. He was mentioned in a short lived controversy early in 2021. The best source was the article from almost 2 years ago in the Telegraph. That's pretty much it for significant coverage. There's just not much for which to build an article. - Nemov (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has interviewed people who worked on various Star Wars films and wrote bestselling Star Wars novels. [1] I would like to add this information to the article, but Nemov seems determined to erase it. More opinions on the talk page of the article please. I would think this adds to his notability by common sense. Dream Focus 09:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and WP:TROUT User:Nemov. Efforts to delete article content while a deletion discussion is ongoing suggest bad faith. BD2412 T 00:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

Comment BD2412, I just restored the article to its state before it was originally deleted. I don't have an issue with the article remaining if that's the consensus. However, new additions must meet guidelines. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- First, you should indent responses. Second, it is entirely permissible for an editor to seek to improve the article during the deletion process. Contesting that makes it seem as though you want the article kept, and are just concerned about its contents. BD2412 T 01:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks and I appreciate the feedback. Following the guidelines are more important to me than user perception. I'd rather not get into the current edit being contested. It's not related to this AFD and shouldn't be debated here, but I assure you my actions are in good faith. Happy editing! Nemov (talk) 12:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has like 3 million subscribers. Eulenbär (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.