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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and religion in Star Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Stars Wars is not a country. This topic is unwarranted and un-notable. Nathan121212 (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 16:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are numerous secondary sources that discuss both the philosophy and religious aspects of the Star Wars Universe. The article itself lists the book Star Wars and Philosophy and there are other books: The Dharma of Star Wars, The Gospel according to Star Wars: Faith, Hope, and the Force, Star Wars Jesus, etc. In addition there has bee a good bit written on the mythological foundations of the Star Wars universe; see for instance Star Wars sources and analogues. Jediism is a real-world crossover of the Star Wars religious ideas with some political impact; see the Jedi census phenomenon. The topic seems highly notable. The article has a general source list, but it could obviously be expanded and better sourced. However, these problems are a surmountable problems per WP:SURMOUNTABLE and not reasons for deletion. One may question whether philosophy and religion should get separate articles or a combined article; but this again is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, but not for the nominating reason. While sources do discuss different aspects this topic, this article can't help but become a lot of SYNTH being cobbled together to make an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The list of sources in the further reading is a compelling argument against the assertion that this topic is non-notable. Any potential problems, such as synthesis, can be corrected through normal editing. Articles shouldn't be kept or deleted based on personal feelings about the subject matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If kept, this will never progress beyond a stub. This is not even worthy of a merge. The entire article can be summarised in a sentence on the Star Wars article. Something like: "Religion in Star Wars includes aspects of Christianity ... and comments on ethics..." Nathan121212 (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the massive amount of literature found in Google books. Plenty of scope here for expansion, especially on the links to Zoroastrianism. Some of those making "delete" arguments don't seem to have searched. Niteshift36 makes a valid point, but with care, a SYNTH-free article is quite possible. -- 101.117.89.21 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There are now several reliable references in the article, documenting links to several different religious concepts. I also note that the article was once much longer, but was stubbed down due to lack of references. -- 101.117.109.179 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Previous nominator withdrew, declaring "I deserve a trout" for not finding the large array of available sources. Faced with a much lesser task, of reading what the previous nominator had to say, this nominator still failed. What is next after trout? Anarchangel (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to have more than enough sources to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2014 (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.