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 delete.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters[edit]

Tagged as unsourced and therefore unverifiable since October 2006(!). Non-notable either as individual characters or as a collection; most entries do not seem to be from the (notable) films, but from novels and media of uncertain provenance (fan fiction?). Written completely from an in-universe point of view and would need a full rewrite even if deemed verifiable and notable. Sandstein 15:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it can't be sourced, Wikipedia is not for fanfic material. JIP | Talk 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fanficcruft. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any non-plot information in the entire article. WP:NOT#PLOT. Infintessimally slim chance an article could exist...But I have no interest in tracking down notable out-of-universe information. -Verdatum (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin If result is delete, please change the redirect Greedo to Han shot first. Taemyr (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim To bounty hunters featured in the movies. Taemyr (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address or resolve most policy issues identified in the nomination. Sandstein 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/unmerge I was set to vote delete as I dislike lists of this sort, which by their name, proclaim their lack of merit. But then I studied the content and saw that there was a long article-within-an-article about Greedo. I'm not a big Star Wars buff but do know that Greedo is quite notable. There are 75 hits for him on Google Scholar alone, including the Scientific American. So, while I have no opinion about the other characters, the material on Greedo must be properly preserved. I suppose that there is a Greedo article which has been merged into this so we need to undo this process. The list is not a proper list but is a chimaera of the sort favoured by disruptive editors like TTN. Burst it back into its component articles and then let them be considered on their merits separately. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can unmerge Greedo now, before the AfD concludes, and we can delete the rest. Sandstein 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some special way to preserve the contribution history? If it were only a matter of Greedo then I could move the article back over the redirect. But what about the others? I fancy that this AFD will attract many comments and so shall await developments. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it more closely, the case for notability is weak even for Greedo. These search results look like passing mentions in the context of discussing some aspect of the movies, not the sort of substantial coverage he would need for an article of his own. Sandstein 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — Also, any notable (i.e., real-world) aspects of the Greedo character seem to be covered in the article Han shot first; the Greedo search results appear to relate to that controversy. Sandstein 18:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution history is a bit messy. Greedo was merged into Minor characters in Star Wars from which this article was split. Taemyr (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is one of the few times where a list is usefull. Would also suggest merging IG-88 into this article --T-rex 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the policy issues identified in the nomination, WP:USEFUL is not an adequate reason to keep this article. Sandstein 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USEFUL before citing it. WP:USEFUL referes to using general usefullness as a reason to keep or delete an article, not at all about the usefullness of one way of formating an article or another. Also badgering every single person who disagrees with you is really bad form --T-rex 05:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor is right! Almost all of these are one-off or background characters in licensed works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe notability of the individual characters is quite dubious, which is exactly why there is a point to combination articles like this. We have perhaps too great a focus on individual articles, and compromises like this are so much the obvious way to go that I'm really surprised to see objections continuing. As for the actual content, yes, I would certainly trim it considerably. It might encourage people to rim content on articles such as this if that would discourage people from trying to delete them.DGG (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom makes very good points about notability. Additionally, the entire is article is plot summary with no real-world context, analysis, or cultural impact. Without sources, the article cannot be improved to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:09, 26 June 2008 (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.