Deletion of Wookieepedia (4th nomination)

Comment: The sources http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Wookieepedia#Popular_acclaim here demonstrate there's sufficient coverage to pass . That they not been used in the article is a content issue -- the subject itself is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: OTPAPER|Wikipedia is not paper.  and  are our slaves, not our masters. Besides, Wookieepedia has been covered by ''Variety''http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117964316.html, SciFi.comhttp://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue449/site.html, ''The New York Times''http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/04/technology/04wiki.html, Howard Sternhttp://www.howardstern.com/rundown.hs?j=n&d=1182139200, and ''TimesOnline''http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/whats_on/article2258521.ece. And
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:N)

Comment: The previous three AFD nominations resulted in a keep consensus.  At this point, should it not have become more notable now?  Notability is not strictly held to  , but  mentions multiple nontrivial mentions in notable sources, which exist on the above-linked Wookieepedia page by
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:NOTE)