Deletion of Great Jedi Purge (4th nomination)

Comment: As a major plot element and, depending on how one sets up one's search parameters, it appears this element is covered in enough detail in independent sources to meet .  Article and project will benefit from work on the article to add citations, but not through deletion. With respect to the nominator's concern "''Surely, if the article could be improved, four and a half to five years is ample time for that to have happened''", |lack of effort by others does not necessarily mean it is unimprovable. See  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOEFFORT||WP:WIP||WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: per sources found by Warden and Stalwart. AFD is . Only a deletionist deals in absolutes
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: with the possible exception of "Star Wars and History", the sources provided are not sufficiently independent of the source to qualify for the  in my opinion.  This sort of content is better hosted on a fan wiki
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: as significant as it might be as a plot element, the sources listed on the article fail to demonstrate any significant real-world importance. Per |what Wikipedia is not, we shouldn't have these articles. Plot is adequately covered on the individual film articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPLOT)

Comment: per #Articles about fictional works.  Although this isn't a guideline, it has some good advice.  We keep film plots to below 700 words for a reason.  This belongs on a fan wikia site, not here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: the topic fails to establish its notability in that there is no significant coverage from reliable and independent secondary sources, per . One-sentence and passing mentions don't count, per #cite_note-1, and those found over the course of the discussion fall in the same category as they don't allow the article to go beyond a plot summary. Per , the emphasis of an article about fiction must be its reception and significance, ''not'' the plot summary which is to be "concise". The inescapable truth of Great Jedi Purge is that it is a massive plot dump frighteningly devoid of out-of-universe content, and the two or three scattered out-of-universe sentences just can't improve or save the article on their own. In order not to violate , plot summary would have to be trimmed down almost to nothing so as to seem "concise" next to the abysmally small amount of discussion on "reception and significance"...that would mean reducing the article down to 5 or 6 sentences. I think some contributors need to open their eyes on the fact that without significant secondary sources there is nothing to be fixed, and the discussion utterly ''failed'' to provide any (most of the sources provided https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Great_Jedi_Purge&diff=576250356&oldid=575181912 in this edit don't have even trivial mentions of the purge), and that Wikipedia doesn't take "so be it" for an answer. One way or an other, "Great Jedi Purge" doesn't deserve a stand-alone article (there could be a merge to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:NOTPLOT||WP:NOTPLOT)