Deletion of List of Star Wars planets (A–B)

Comment: per not violating policy being sourcable and meeting . With respects {{u|Davey2010}}, while certainly information in Wikipedia |''could'' be included outside these pages, |"crap" is not an argument against a list article here. I find mass nominations to be unhelpful, specially when all nominated are then judged by addressable weakness in on or two
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:SALAT||WP:BELONG||WP:PPOV)

Comment: Given that  #2 has been stated as a keep reason (regardless of who believes they have refuted it), I think it is improper to remove any items from any of the lists based on notability until this AfD has been closed
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:CSC)

Comment: per , which states, ''"Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works in addition to a concise summary."'' This means that topics about fictional elements (in this case, planets) should be covered in secondary sources. The ''Star Wars'' novels and the non-independent guides cannot be considered secondary sources for listing the planets. This A-B subset (and the other subsets) is just indiscriminately listing every planet that appears in the fictional universe. I support List of Star Wars planets, limited to the ones that have been critiqued in secondary sources (most likely the ones in the films
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: The nomination claimed that the A-B page was unsourced when it actually had 27 references.  See : "''The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK)