- 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 redirect to Droid. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Astromech droid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
R2-D2's notability doesn't extend to notability of the group as a whole; this is an unreferenced list of trivial, non-notable droid types. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, article could be improved, there are plenty of sources out there, mainly a preserve of role players and sci-fi trivia freaks, but Wikipedia reference produces lost of references and not just to R2D2. Have placed Afd ntoices on recent contributor talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm a huge Star Wars fan, but this is a little too in-depth too actually be notable to anyone but the most hardcore trivia freak. Isn't there a Star Wars wiki this can be cut-and-pasted to? --BlueSquadronRaven 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wookieepedia is the most prominent Star Wars wiki, but their article is in good enough condition that I doubt they'd want any of the material from here. BryanG (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This can be summarized on another page (i.e. R2-D2), it doesn't need an entire article. - Raziel teatime 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is material that can be covered elsewhere, it needs to be merged (not all of the detail) instead of deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 08:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Perhaps transwiki to Wookieepedia? Also, maybe this topic, protocol droid, and battle droid could be part of some kind of Science and technology in Star Wars topic? After all, there is a book called The Science of Star Wars. A sub-topic of such an article could include piecemeal commentary about droids. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Merge to Droid. This seems an obvious choice. The Droid article is slim and badly in need of additional content, and this would fit perfectly. If at some point in the future that article gets too big, then we can consider splitting this one back out. Powers T 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this: nothing in the astromech droid is appropriately cited; shifting it to another article merely moves around a pile of cruft. Additionally, the content is minutiae in-universe trivia that delves too deeply into insignificant make-believe content. Lastly, the material already at droid sufficiently covers this topic; it doesn't need expansion into every last type of model. --EEMIV (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the astromech is one of the two most well known types of droid in the Star Wars milieu. I don't believe the content at droid is sufficient. But do note I'm not suggesting a "straight text dump" as BryanG implies. Powers T 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- R2-D2 is one of the two most well known droids in the Star Wars milieu; the character has been written about, merchandised, even turned into a great spoof. There is no "type" of Star Wars droid (except, maybe, battle droids) that is particularly well known -- at least, to the point of receiving any sort of significant coverage or commentary. The idea of "astromech droids" is a negligible bit of "filler" created to more fully populate the Star Wars universe, and are just window dressing. This droid family does not inherit notability or significance from the notable exemplar. I see no significant cited content at the astromech droid article worth merging anywhere. If you'd like to find and cite real-world information, critical reaction, etc. to astromech droids and merge it elsewhere, all the Lt. Powers to you. --EEMIV (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that the content at droid related to astromechs could be expanded, and this title should redirect there. That sounds like a merge to me. Powers T 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- R2-D2 is one of the two most well known droids in the Star Wars milieu; the character has been written about, merchandised, even turned into a great spoof. There is no "type" of Star Wars droid (except, maybe, battle droids) that is particularly well known -- at least, to the point of receiving any sort of significant coverage or commentary. The idea of "astromech droids" is a negligible bit of "filler" created to more fully populate the Star Wars universe, and are just window dressing. This droid family does not inherit notability or significance from the notable exemplar. I see no significant cited content at the astromech droid article worth merging anywhere. If you'd like to find and cite real-world information, critical reaction, etc. to astromech droids and merge it elsewhere, all the Lt. Powers to you. --EEMIV (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this: nothing in the astromech droid is appropriately cited; shifting it to another article merely moves around a pile of cruft. Additionally, the content is minutiae in-universe trivia that delves too deeply into insignificant make-believe content. Lastly, the material already at droid sufficiently covers this topic; it doesn't need expansion into every last type of model. --EEMIV (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Droid, though a selective merge of some material might be okay. Honestly, and I'm saying this as a Star Wars fan, the one-sentence summary of astromechs in the third paragraph of the droid article is probably close to sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes, though perhaps a little more elaboration would be nice. A straight text dump would simply overwhelm the droid article and place undue emphasis on one type of droid, though, so any merging of material would have to be done very carefully. BryanG (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is enough information to justify its own article, and the information may be interesting to some, plus is presented in a proper encyclopedic manner. Dream Focus 12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Droid. Merge only selective details from the lead section (perhaps a paragraph's worth). Nothing below that section is worth merging, being in-universe and indiscriminate detail. Like I commented before, such information can be transwiki'ed to Wookieepedia, and that article could be linked to in the "External links" section at the Droid article. (Not sure about the acceptability of linking to Wikia sites, though?) At the very least, the article should redirect to Droid since this is a likely keyword search, and redirects are cheap. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This page's information is too in-depth for Wikipedia, recommend transferring to Wookiepedia, but this page is redundant to theirs. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an in-universe collection of original research showing no relevence to the real-world whatsoever. This fails WP:WAF which states that notability of articles should be demonstrated in the real world, and not just in the subject's world. Furthermore, this article contains no reliable sources, even after this long discussion. As it stands, it is only a game guide and plot summary. If nobody's willing to make the attempt to bring this article up to par with our policies and guidelines when it is in the spotlight of deletion, then either it cannot be done or nobody cares enough to do it. ThemFromSpace 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A certain editor still needs to swing by. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there are no reliable sources that establish independent notability for this fictional object.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki To a star wars wiki Jwray (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment re. transwiki - Wookieepedia already covers this topic in far more detail than does Wikipedia.[1] --EEMIV (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2009 (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.