Deletion of Star Wars speculation

Comment: Please read 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ONLYESSAY)

Comment: Also be sure to check out 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: per , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:V||WP:CBALL)

Comment: I apologize.  I see you were referring to 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: Unlike Sherlock Holmes speculation, which is entirely about a series of published works on the topic, this appears to be pure speculation by the editor.  If there are sources that can substantiate the text, as I think there are in the Holmes page, then I would consider keeping it, but since it appears to be the speculation of some editor, it's almost  more than anything else
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CBALL)

Comment: What makes you even think I like this article?  Just pointing out the rampant lack of underestanding about the difference between policy/guideline/essays the proliferate through these AFD discussions.  The goal may be valid, the arguments given are not.  Please read  and  again as well, esp the sections on 'cruft' as well as the disclaimers on the top
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ONLYESSAY||WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Just want to note  is not policy or even a guideline, it's only a POV essay.  While personally I like it (for the most part), I don't think it should be used as a "per" reason in AFDs
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT)