Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Order (Star Wars): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:36, 15 November 2019

First Order (Star Wars)

[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)

Unlike the classic Galactic Empire (Star Wars) and such, the new movies faction has generated very little coverage/reception. Sure, there is a little, I mean, it's STAR WARS, but it's all just some mentions in passing/fictional descriptions. Besides the two-three sentences on writer's inspiration with Nazi apologetics/survivors, I don't think there is anything to work with, and that section can be safely merged into one about the movie this faction first debuted in. And all the fictional info and such is already much better described at https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/First_Order . _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The First Order appears in several movies and books that are notable and articles on their own. Having an article on this organization is a useful companion piece that is best on its own, and not within a single movie's article. Alaney2k (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Apearing in a bunch of media is insufficient if they are all primary (fiction) works. Which sources provide analysis of real world significance/impact of the concept? So far all we have are one-two sentences about the script writer inspiration with Nazi fans. Interesting, but even that is not in-depth in the sources cited. This is not sufficient to demonstrate this WP:PLOT element is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, the coverage isn't as broad and long in history as the Empire, but it's still clearly passes the GNG. Being not as notable doesn't mean it is not notable. oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhere in a blow it up and start again spot; this is not how we write about fiction. Stub it out at least, and at most a redirect to Galactic Empire might be in order. --Izno (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Move it to Draft ? Alaney2k (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it is consumed by WP:G13. Either it's notable or not; if it is, we should treat it as such and do the minimal necessary to clean it up (where minimal necessary is not nothing) rather than consign it to the garbage bin. --Izno (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page should definitely be edited and re-phrased but I believe that it is notable enough is featured in enough movies to stay. Dellwood546 (talk)
Keep The page needs a lot of work, but the topic itself satisfies gng due to being a central aspect in many notable movies. I think that the fact that it is less notable compared to the Empire is not a reason to delete. Taewangkorea (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with the above comments; article needs work but is notable and there are many reliable sources out there that could be used to improve it (as the recent edits by Alaney2k already indicate). — Hunter Ka hn 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do commend User:Alaney2k on his creation of First_Order_(Star_Wars)#Themes, but I still feel uneasy that this is the extent of media coverage that is sufficient for notability. It's effectively is one-two sentence analysis. There seem like nothing else we can write about it that is not in-universe. Is this really sufficient for a stand-alone article? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to obvious notability as verified in thousands of reliable sources. --131.123.51.67 (talk) 15:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 *'''Keep'''. Agree with the above comments; article needs work but is notable and there are many [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] out there that could be used to improve it (as the recent edits by Alaney2k already indicate). — [[User:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">Hun</b>]][[User talk:Hunter Kahn|<b style="color:#C0C0C0">ter</b>]] [[Special:Contribs/Hunter_Kahn|<b style="color:#595454">Ka</b>]][[User:Hunter Kahn/Autographs|<b style="color:#595454">hn</b>]] 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 *'''Comment'''. I do commend [[User:Alaney2k]] on his creation of [[First_Order_(Star_Wars)#Themes]], but I still feel uneasy that this is the extent of media coverage that is sufficient for notability. It's effectively is one-two sentence analysis. There seem like nothing else we can write about it that is not in-universe. Is this really sufficient for a stand-alone article? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</span>]]</sub> 02:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' due to obvious notability as verified in thousands of reliable sources.  --[[Special:Contributions/131.123.51.67|131.123.51.67]] ([[User talk:131.123.51.67|talk]]) 15:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)