Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 25 June 2008

Lightsaber combat

• Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat
• Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (5th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (second nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (third nomination)

Lightsaber combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural Nom for User:Arcayne, noms rationale: "Article is full of cruft and non-notable synthesis" per this diff. ascidian | talk-to-me 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

*Delete - on the face of it, this article has plenty of sources - only problem is, as far as I can see from examining them, none of them make the claims or present the detailed knowledge presented in the article. Even if this article does survive AFD and it shouldn't, the best way to fix it would be to stub it to a paragraph. --Killerofcruft (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - One source, much WP:SYN.— Dædαlus /_Improve 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep- I get both sides of the argument. For the delete side- cruft, OR, lacks citations, and oodles of in-universe badness. On the keep side- there's the fact that this is a form of "combat" that has appeared in 6 films, several tv shows, numerous comic books and novels, and video games; that the forms were created from real martial arts forms like kendo. The article needs a BUTTLOAD of cleanup, but the issues it has require cleanup, not deletion.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It might need cleanup, but the content itself is notable, and has been observed in the entire Star Wars franchise, as Umbralcorax has said. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wookiepedia. I like Star Wars but this article is not suitable in Misplaced Pages. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Axe everything from "Another mention..." to the end of the Training section. As for the rest . . . eh, possibly merge remainder into (crufty) lightsaber article. --EEMIV (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Merge much improved content to much improved lightsaber. --EEMIV (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Supposedly the nom removed the 'non-notable synthesis' portion from the article, leaving the rationale only as, "It's crufty," which is a garbage WP:CRUFTCRUFT rationale that should never be used when brought to AFD. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. AFD is not cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep— As said above, the page deals with an idea that is based on a real thing, and is in 6 movies, many books, video games, etc. The page needs cleanup, yes, but it is still notable. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. In any event, consistent per our First pillar of being a specialized encyclopedia on Star Wars, of which there are published books. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• We are not a specialized star wars encyclopedia. We are an encyclopedia incorporating elements of specialized encyclopedia (among others). Protonk (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• As such we should keep this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Where on that page does it say anything about Starwars? This is not Wookipedia.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It says that it contains elements of specialized encyclopedias and this article is consistent with elements of specialized encyclopedia. We're not Britannica either, but we have some of the same articles as they have. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as this article certainly requires cleanup but that's what the "cleanup" tag is for, not AfD. Clearly notable and properly sourced. (6th nom--seriously?) - Dravecky (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, yes, but that does not by any means mean that the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.12.206 (talk • contribs)
• Keep ...so delete the "cruft". A notable topic both substantial in-universe and real-world information. --Canley (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and Merge. See comments below the bolded NOTEWeak Delete Oodles of WP:SYN. References are primarily starwars.com and theforce.net. There probably are a few reliable sources that cover lightsaber combat in significant detail, enough for a short article on the subject written in an out of universe fashion. Those sources aren't here. furthermore, with the article at its current size and condition, the inclusion of those sources is likely to provide only a marginal benefit. And I agree with the people above, even IF the article remains, everything from Lightsaber combat in the star wars movies on down needs to be removed. ZOMG, talking about George Lucas is serious business. On a related note, this article reminded me of the burning passionate hatred I feel for George Lucas for his destruction of a precious childhood memory(EDIT CONFLICT) I removed most of the in universe unreferenced sections. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure dislike of George Lucas is relevant to the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 05:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm sure you can handle a little color in the discussion. Don't lecture me. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sometimes maybe, but not when it's part of a "rationale" to remove other people's work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It's not part of a "rationale" at all. It is a comment appended to an argument for deletion. just because I happen to favor deleting this article doesn't mean that all comments I make are bent on that goal. Geez, I even added "on a related note". And I also don't like the insinuation that deletion of articles is somehow inherently unethical. Some articles fall within the scope of the project. some don't. The articles that don't meet the criteria to stay no more deserve to be kept than do the articles that DO meet the criteria deserve to be removed. On balance, I would prefer that the benefit of the doubt go to the article. Usually, that seems to be how it works. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
        • The thing is in a sixth nomination (consensus can change, okay, but six times?!), it's hard to see humor. Deletion of articles that are not hoaxes, not libelous, not copyright violations, not how tos, etc. is somewhat anti-academic and anti-the ecncylopedic tradition per User:Pwnage8#Deletionism vs. Inclusionism, User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, especially when we're a paperless encyclopedia with new editors constantly joining. Anyway, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
          • I don't give a rip what User:Pwnage or Freshneez or whoever has to say about deletionism. It is one think to feel that a tradition of inclusion is good. It is quite another to dictate your own expectations of what should be included divorced from policy. It doesn't matter if I don't agree with the WP:N/V/RS/etc policies and guidelines, unless I have good reason to ignore all rules, I ought to be guided by them. This article will probably eventally be kept. Not because every article should be kept but because it has reliable sources and asserts notability. Not every article will do that. if it doesn't, the guidelines (which represent established consensus) suggest they be deleted. there isn't anything inherently wicked to that. Protonk (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
            • Well, I care what others think per Misplaced Pages:Editors matter. I agree that editors should not dictate limited inclusion criteria on those who are willing to work on and improve articles. And I agree with you that the article should be kept, because it has reliable sources and asserts notability. Not all guidelines, though, have as established consensus as some may think, as evidenced by such categories as this and comments like this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
              • That's just another essay arguing that deletion is bad. Here's my point. Deletion, given the system we have, is value neutral. so is inclusion. what is a problem is the creation or the illusion of consensus from false premises. So when an article with reliable sources and notable subjects is deleted because people are convinced it is cruft, that is bad (BTW, that doesn't happen very often). Likewise, when all but the most egregious articles can be expected to be defended by a few people using their own expansive guidelines for inclusion, that is bad as well. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, Notability is a guideline for the encyclopedia. It presumably (again, absent some reason to ignore all rules)should direct action. You're free to ignore it, but ignoring it all the time basically is the same thing as ignoring WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA or WP:V. In each case you are substituting your judgment about which rules are legitimate with the judgment of the community. we all have disagreements on the merits of policies, obviously. Disagreements aren't the same thing as outright rejection. But rejection of policy and action on the basis of continued rejection of that policy is not constructive. so quote all the userpages you want about how every article should be kept if it doesn't violate some arbitrary subset (or alternate set) of rules. the rest of us will continue to operate on commonly understood rules. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
                • The article should be kept because it satisfies the "rules". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - The article is essentially an explanation of how the lightsaber battles were choreographed--I see no indication that "lightsaber combat" is itself a sufficiently notable topic suitable for Misplaced Pages, and the comments in favor of keeping the article fail to address this point. If anything, the content here should be presented in the context of the production of the films rather than as a standalone item. --jonny-mt 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It's notable per coverage in books and the news. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I suggest you strike through your books comment, unless you can cite a third-party book that is not based in the universe.— Dædαlus /_Improve 05:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
      • No reason to strike reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • There is a reason when those sources aren't reliable. Reliable sources must be 3rd party. Not books developed by the same people who made the movie.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • To further my note, looking through that entire list, there are no sources to assert noblity of the subject. Any books there that are not created by the makers of the movie, or authors for the universe are only listed because combat is part of the search query. Even the books listed that are written by the makers don't assert nobility in the reasoning that they hardly mention the combat specifically, and instead reference that combat was used, not the specifics of it. Finally, you cannot use books by the makers of the movie/games due to WP's conflict of interest policy; since they are the makers of lightsaber combat they would of course try to put it in as positive a light as possible.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
        • So I ask you again, instead of listing a search query for the words light, saber, and combat, cite three third-party books to claim nobility, and strike through the search query.— Dædαlus /_Improve 06:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
          • There is a such thing as reliable primary sources as well and coupled with the secondary sources in the news category they are sufficient to construct an article an a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
            • I find it funny you're evading. Please provide at least one third party source.— Dædαlus /_Improve 07:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
              • Well, there there in the searches, such as "Lightsaber combat to hit the Wii... eventually" or "Star Wars Lightsaber Combat (Mobile)". Something that is in the title of articles or that appears as the title of games will have reviews and the like that provide secondary coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                • Neither of those count, this article was to be deleted because it was about a non-notable subject, the reason those do not count is because they both reference some game. Not the specifics of the combat.— Dædαlus /_Improve 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                  • Please be serious. Multiple appearances in the TITLES of articles that are secondary sources means that some article with the title of Lightsaber combat is valid for inclusion. They reference games that showcase the combat. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 07:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                    • He is being serious. The intent of wikipedia is to have information that is supported and verified by outside sources. It does us NO GOOD WHATSOEVER to generate a subject or a claim and then hunt around for a source to support it. That is the reverse of proper research. Linking a game review and a preview for another game as a means to substantiate an article on lightsaber combat is borderline. If you don't agree with WP:N, please help us stick to the intent of WP:RS/WP:V. Protonk (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                      • Dismissing reliable sources is concerning. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 08:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                        • Are you for real? Are you even READING? The sources aren't being dismissed, the process of shoehorning any source with matching words in a boolean search is being dismissed. If this were an article where the subject of the source matched the subject of the article in any significant sense, I would be happy to support it. Instead, if the relationship is tangential, I can't help but question the method used to find the source and connect it to the article. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                          • Are you? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                            • Knock that off. You're being tendentious and difficult. Parroting back lines without any other addition to the debate is a recipe for frustration. Adding "best" or "sincerely" to the end doesn't make it civil or polite. The basis for civility in this discussion is a respect for the contributions of others. If you respond mechanistically to every point y ignoring it and refactoring a sentence or to, that shows absolute disregard for civility and consensus. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
                              • • I will be happy when you stop being tendentious and difficult and stop disregarding civility and consensus. I am supporting consensus by supporting this article. If you don't beleieve you are going to convince me here, then why keep responding? In any event, we both seem to agree below that the article was improved and should be kept and therefore I suggest we not comment any further about each other, but only focus on the articles undeer discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE

As the article has undergone substantial revision/editing (from this disaster to something actually readable), I am wondering if the nom is not now moot, as it applies to an article whose crufty, non-notable, uncited content is largely a thing of the past. Thoughts? - Arcayne () 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment- Holy crap, that is a huge improvement from what it was. Thank you whoever did that for finally getting the concept of "out of universe perspective". Umbralcorax (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree this is a huge improvement, but I'm still not convinced that the topic is notable enough to warrant its own article (in fact, this is the version that I was commenting on). To address the links provided by Le Grand Roi above, most of them deal not with lightsaber combat as an individual topic but rather different strategies for playing various video games where lightsaber combat is involved. It seems to me that this topic will always be subsumed under the concept of either lightsabers or the production process for the movies, and so I'm of the opinion that if the cited real-world content is kept, it would be more useful and appropriate as part of an existing article on one of these topics. --jonny-mt 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough do deal with it, however, to justify keeping the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can provide some sources discussing lightsaber combat in an independent context, that would be great! From what I see, though, the sources linked above simply have the words "lightsaber" and "combat" in close proximity to each other--if that's your criteria, then I've got 31,000 hits and 101 articles for "puppy dog helmet" just waiting to have an article written about them :) --jonny-mt 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all - puppy dog helmet? - hilarious (you almost made me nose-boot coffee, you bastard!:) )

Secondly, though puppy dog helmet will bring up that many entries, it is usually because the words are used in the same article, not because there are over 30k entries for helmeted canines.

I wanted to point out that this is an AfD debate for an article which I (humbly) submit has been fundamentally altered so as to be able to avoid deletion at this time. The arguments for deletion are for an article that has changed somewhat significantly. I propose that we close this article as a tentative keep. I would support a merge nom into Lightsaber, as I think that those two articles dovetail nicely, and will allow us to trim the resultant article even further. Thoughts? - Arcayne () 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I also support closing the AfD as a keep. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per the clean-up effort. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates