Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:20, 2 May 2008

Force lightning

Force lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable plot gimmick/special effect. Single citation is to unreliable source. Original research ("a single powerful blast may be sufficient to kill a person instantly") and plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:FICT and WP:N. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete article, create redirect to Force (Star Wars). Star Cruft, Cruft Wars, Attack of the Cruft, take your pick. I know the chances that this article will actually be deleted are slim at best, considering the amount of Star Wars fans around these parts. This is a shame, as this article serves only to make Misplaced Pages look like an amateurish fanguide. Nothing is notable about this outside the Star Wars world. The absolute best we could hope for from this article would be List of appearances of Force lightning in popular culture, and that's a warning sign. Throw 'er on a Star Wars-themed Wiki, but far too in-universe for this particular Wiki, especially considering the more iconic Force-related quote also redirects to aforementioned article. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any useful information into Force (Star Wars), Darth Vader or their respective articles where they belong. This fails WP:FICT and WP:N. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 00:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak merge While it's true that the information would be primarily useful only o Star Wars fans, that isn't a valid deletion argument. Such arguments are CRUFTCRUFT and IDONTKNOWIT. A better concern with the article is that it doesn't have a lot of real-world relevance and can't really be written in an out-of-universe style. As it stands now, Wookiepedia already has a much better article than ours about the subject, so they wouldn't benefit from a merge of this material. Information should be merged into an article on the force in a section about the uses thereof if real-world relevance can't be found (and I can't see any in relevant sources). Celarnor 01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: It would seem that Force power is the place for this. Celarnor 01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I am disinclined to compound one atrocious, poorly-cited/-edited article's problems by merging another one into it. --EEMIV (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Mmmm, crufty. Badly written, poorly sourced, and never going to be more than that. Merge anything reliable into Force power for now, deal with that cruft in the future. WLU (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to an article on force powers or some such. Various places for "real world" electrokinesis may exist as well. Doesn't need a standalone article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into other Star Wars characters Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Force power. WP:fancruft isn't a good reason for deletion, but lack of notability is and I can't find any secondary sources on this subject, only passing pop culture references. On the other hand, I think there are independant sources for Jedi powers in general (e.g. some of these links) with discussion such as the impact of those fictional concepts on modern culture so that article is redeemable, even if it's currently totally unsourced in terms of secondary references...which it is. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wookieepedia and delete, per WLU. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or merge depending on what gives the best results - this is something that we need to cover with the Force, which we must cover with Star Wars. --Kizor 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Star Wars. Verifiable and reognizable topic that appears in notable films and video games. "Cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:ITSCRUFT, Misplaced Pages:Cruftcruft, DGG, and Verdatum. And the article has improved from the nominated version versus the current version. Moreover, we cannot "delete and merge" per Misplaced Pages:Merge and delete. Finally, there is a clear interest in the topic among our readers and editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment You haven't addressed that there is no evidence of the WP:notability of this subject. If it's not notable, why should it have its own article? The subject doesn't need to be described by a long page of information clearly from primary sources (mostly computer game manuals), all the reliable sources about "Force lightning" can be covered in a paragraph or two in a more general article on the Force. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I have seen no indication that it is not notable. It appears in some of the most successful films of all times and also in video and other types of games and even if as you suggest it should be covered in an article on the Force, then we would still merge and redirect without deletion. I see zero benefit to the project in outright deletion and as DGG notes below when an article has potential, we do not delete, we redirect with the allowance for the existing article to be improved when additional sources are added. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof does not fall on those asserting non-notability; the burden of proof is on those claiming notability -- and there is no evidence of "Force lightning"'s notability. This effect/gimmick does not inherit notability from the films or games in which it appears. Given the lack of sources and in-universe treatment, I see no utility in retaining this article, and simply merging it into Force powers would shift one pile of unsubstantiated dreck into another, simply exacerbating the project's problem with unsubstantiated in-universe plot summary and OR. --EEMIV (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Appearances in multiple media, even toys, and given the hits this article gets (thousands of readers and clear evidence of editors working on the artucle) suggest notability. As a sub or break off article, the effect/gimmick inherits notability from the films and games in which it appears and is covered by a mix of sources, both primary and secondary and just needs clean up, not deletion. I see no gain for our project in not retaining this article. As a community of editors, the burden is on ALL of us to do what we can to improve articles and not to just order others to do so, especially on a paperless encyclopedia without a deadline. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment One way that we can improve the encyclopedia is to avoid subjects that lend themselves primarily to unreferencable waffle. I've looked for independant sources on "force lightning" and failed to find them. Unless some can be found, it doesn't warrant an article to itself because the independantly referencable discussion of the subject is so small that it can easily fit within another article. I've never seen a guideline that suggests "sub articles" should be exempted from WP:N, I don't think that's the case. Note that the opinion of many here is to merge/redirect. Clearly actual deletion would be counterproductive, but that's just a technicality.Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Unless if we can say we have exhausted all publications, i.e. sci fi, toy, and Star Wars magazines, then I don't think we can say definitively that a non-hoax topic such as this one cannot be better referenced. If there is any consensus to merge and redirect then we do not need a deletion discussion to do those. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 03:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Given the absence of reliable sources and the non-encyclopedic tone of this article, I disagree that deletion is "clearly" "counterproductive." Unreferenced plot summary and trivia like this dilute the pool of actually well-done Battletartrekwars-related articles. --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So, you're suggesting that this special effect's incorporation as an action figure *accessory* suggests notability? "clear evidence of editors working on the artucle" is a vague and, like this article, unsubstantiated rationale to keep it. I have no idea -- and doubt you do, either -- how to back up this claim of "thousands of readers." All ~25 articles that link to this "article" use the term/idea in the context of plot summary, without any discussion or notion of real-world notability. And as for the idea that this thing should remain until all potential sources have been examined -- well, you simply have it backwards; sources should be on hand and incorporated into an article as it's developed. Editors who want to add/restore/retain material have the burden of meeting Misplaced Pages's WP:V and WP:N standards -- that clearly hasn't been the case in this thing's almost-three-year history. Perhaps you should userfy this article until citations to reliable sources establishing notability, verifying claims and providing an out-of-universe perspective come up. --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does indeed suggest notability as its something that is specifically mentioned as a major feature of that action figure. Deletion rationales for the article tend to be "I don't like it" in nature. I can back up the claim of thousands of readers with the fact that I link to a page above that demonstrates in one month alone the page received thousands of hits. Articles develop over time. Misplaced Pages is in effect a constant work in progress. Therefore, the article is still being developed and should remain in mainspace where any editor can come and continue to improve it. There's no deadline. Instead of userfying it, the article has a greater likelihood of improvement if it remains in mainspace. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm not saying that no references could ever be found. But what are the odds of finding significant reliable coverage in an independant source? Slight to none, reflecting its lack of notability. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Star_Wars says that "Only a few characters, items, or spaceships deserve their own entry" and that trivial information is "frowned upon". This article is not on a subject of primary importance to Star Wars, and can only ever contain trivia because force lightning has never been a subject of interest in its own right outside of fan sites. The deletion discussion here can establish a consensus on whether the subject warrants an article to itself, which can then be referred to when implementing the redirection.Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Considering the popularity of Star Wars, I think the odds are very good that given time and adequate searching on not just online, but published sources significant reliable sources could be found. It is a important force power and given that Star Wars just keeps making games and figures these sorts of aspects will only increase in notability and coverage. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And, as usual, nothing speaks against recreating the article iff and only when reliable sources verifying notability have been found. Such sources should be included right on article creation. Please stop speculating; and please start acknowledging valid arguments. Dorftrottel (harass) 09:57, May 2, 2008

While my argument is to keep, I will acknowledge that there are valid arguments presented for merging and redirecting without deleting; however, there are no valid arguments for outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 13:27, May 2, 2008

Not really. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reply to this post. Dorftrottel (warn) 13:31, May 2, 2008

• Speedy delete, fails all notability prerequisites. Dorftrottel (bait) 00:08, May 1, 2008
• Weak delete possibly could be an article, but this does seem to consist of essentially OR. Could be recreated with some better sources if they are available. I prefer not to be cited as if my general opinions were WP policy. It's flattering, but not really truthful. DGG (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • If an article has potential then we would be best off not outright deleting it, but in a worst case scenario would redirect it as others suggest, although I still personally believe that the article should be kept. Anyway, I am not citing you as if you were policy, but only as indicative of a specific respected user beyond the two shortcuts I provide that the whole "cruft" as an argument from editors really does not add anything to these discussions. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • But is there potential here? WP:PLOT is fairly clear that plot information for its own sake is not wanted. Taemyr (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, there is indeed potential. If we use the various published sources, we should over time be able to better source and expand the article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Force (Star Wars) or Force power - not sufficiently notable for it's own article - but are we denying it's existence? Seems like it would be better placed padding out the main article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This article is purely plot synopsis. There is nothing here to merge since there is more than enough plot in the articles that it have been suggested for the merge. Taemyr (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The article is not only plot synopsis. When there is a valid redirect location (although I still think the article should be kept) and the article in question is not a hoax, libel, or copy vio, we redirect, rather than delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know where you get this idea that only hoaxes, libel and copyvios get deleted. Per policy, "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source" is also up for deletion. This topic I believe falls under the former, and there is a dearth of the reliable sources for an appropriate out-of-universe perspective per the latter. --EEMIV (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The article has content verfiable in reliable sources and those should not be deleted. If I was able to find some references relatively rapidly, there's no reason to think that given more time, we couldn't find even more references. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT#PLOT. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no evidence that it fails any of those. Please note WP:VAGUEWAVE. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • This comment indicates that I have read your response to my !vote, but do not feel there is a reason to reply since conversations with you do not lead anywhere. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates