Deletion of Bantha (2nd nomination)

Comment: These sorts of articles are often just . But this article is actually quite solid, and built on a whopping 82 sources. There is a lot of real world refs, not just in universe stuff. I reject the trivia argument, and see no other good reason to delete it. I also think that redirecting is a poor choice, as that would make a 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: When I saw the AFD I assumed this article would be all plot summary, as is usually the case in situations like this, but not only is it from a real-world perspective, it is cited by |verifiable |secondary |reliable sources, which speak to the subject's |notability. I also suspect the article could be expanded upon and fleshed out further, so I think it's worth keeping. It's also worth pointing out there was a previous AFD for this subject that resulted in a keep after the article was revised to reflect its notability and a |consensus was reached to keep it, and although that certainly doesn't mean we can't discuss this again in AFD, I'll just note that OTTEMPORARY|notability is not temporary, so if the subject was notable back then, it's still notable now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:SECONDARY||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:CONSENSUS||WP:NOTTEMPORARY)

Comment: While the article has a plethora of sources, they are either only brief mentions, are not independent, or are 'top x' lists. As it stands, this article does not pass 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)