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 after a complete real-world-perspective rewrite. Sandstein (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bantha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Relevance at WP:FICT and WP:WAF- mostly plot summary, in-unvierse, with a trivia section which hardly argues for its notability. David Fuchs ^(talk) 20:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I actually knew what they were, but that doesn't change the fact that the article is all original research without citations. Outside of the Star Wars universe, there isn't any notability that I can think of. Not like 'Jedi', which has reached into other areas, etc. Pharmboy (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Neutral That was a pretty good rewrite and now focuses on the actual animal used and is properly cited with less in-universe content. This may or may not be notability as written, but probably will pass. Pharmboy (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found one piece of real world info here. Davewild (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but that doesn't add to the notability so much as simply referencing the bantha as being "old technology" compared to cgi stuff today. It is about the technology that made the bantha, not even the bantha itself. Pharmboy (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find the original bantha here apparently it was an elephant called Mardji who died in 1995. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete insufficient notability outside of Star Wars universe. The Chronicle piece is a trivial mention of Banthas. The popular culture references are original research-y. Darkspots (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP My appologies, but i'm not sure what others are seeing. The article is 90% out-of universe and highly referenced. Maybe i'm missing something but I see this as a strong keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more appologies, after checking the history i believe the article i commented on was far different then the one nominated. But the article that now exists i stand by as a keep.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A good rewrite has taken place adding out of universe information which is referenced. The article might actually needs a bit more plot added to the article now! Davewild (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable fictional creature with plenty of sources. Happy New Year! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article in its current form is concise, informative and interesting.--starfarmer*comm 04:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is notable. Axl (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This one is notable. Or is it poodoo (I can never spell this Lucas junk)? Lawrence Cohen 23:02, 3 January 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.