Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endorian Holocaust

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept, no consensus - SimonP 20:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Endorian Holocaust

[edit]

Fancruft. It's not well-written, either. Much more appropriate at Star Wars Wiki, where Star Wars fans can write to their hearts' content about stuff like this. As it is, I don't see how debates about which canon supports this theory or whether George Lucas would agree with the theory belong on such a venerable encyclopedia as this one. Delete this article, and write a better one one the Star Wars wiki.--67.123.232.156 06:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth reminding people that redirect and merge are both counted as keep votes. it's all to easy to forget that. Islamic fascism has just survived a VfD for exactly that reason. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - barely. I'd agree it is not well written, however I've heard very interesting, detailed, and scientific debates on this which made it into a fascinating thought experiment. What is here is not very good, but I say give it time to see if someone comes along and makes it right. --John Kenneth Fisher 06:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Mass-nominating on VfD is probably not a good idea. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article is borderline encyclopedic, but with some reservations. The Sci-Fi genre is not really committed to realism, and Endor is still standing at the end of the Return of the Jedi. Sjakkalle 07:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on its own merits. All the movie's heroes were on the moon and it's absurd to think that Lucas meant for them all to die. This is glorified fan fiction. Gazpacho 07:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue of whether this event "actually happened" in the context of the fictional universe, whether Lucas intended for it to happen, etc. is addressed within the article itself. VfD isn't the right forum to be debating that sort of thing in. Bryan 15:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Borderline notability. Megan1967 09:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fan speculation. A couple of lines in the Endor article can deal with this subject, but this whole article is just overwritten fanwanking. Gamaliel 09:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as Gamaliel. Wikipedia explicitly excludes speculation, the propounding of theought experiments, etc. — that's original research (though that term really flatters this article). That the nominator has nominated less obvious articles, or is mass-nominating, is irrelevant to the vote on this one. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Endor. dab (ᛏ) 13:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest severely condensing (no more than a few sentences) and merging into Endor. Pretty obvious that the holocaust theory wasn't the intent of Lucas (in fact the article even states that several canonical sources have debunked it). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and maybe add a paragraph in Endor. I've read this theory in a handful of other webpages [1] but it is still fan speculation, and not particularly notable. Firebug 13:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-encyclopedic. A small amount of this article could rewritten for one of the other starwars articles if it's not already covered well enough.
  • Keep. By the way, when I do VfD closes I always count redirects/merges distinct from keeps and deletes. It seems fairer to me that way. I get a lot of "no consensus" results, but I think that's okay because it reflects the diversity of opinion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! The nominator has been mass-nominating Star Wars articles on Vfd. Apparently on some kind of crazy anti-star wars crusade. Stancel 18:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean that the nature of the article is irrelevant; you'll vote to keep for extraneous reasons, ignoring the arguments given for deleting? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or Stancel may simply be saying their vote is for keeping it. Also, The nominator has been mass-nominating Star Wars articles on Vfd. Which is info I'm glad to know, so I can consider and vote on some of those others--John Kenneth Fisher 18:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC).
    • Mass-nominating? I nominated three articles on Vfd. Hardly a mass-nomination. Next time you libel me, at least try to make it sound plausible.--67.123.232.156 19:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Though the attempt to add "..and then deleted" to the Star Wars Wiki template tag would arguably count as an attempt to delete EVERY Star Wars article using it, a whole lot more than three. --John Kenneth Fisher 19:50, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's true that I did change the template to that. But in that case I was only following the recommendations of the Star Wars Wiki itself (see [2]). Also, when I did that, I did not nominate the articles, I merely took an action that might eventually lead to the articles' deletion. You cannot say that I mass nominated those articles for deletion, since nominating consists of placing vfd tags and such, as I did with these three (carefully selected) articles.--67.123.232.156 03:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. Dumb VfD drama about a dumb D-canon SW fandom debate. Delete this and all other fandom debates with little basis in canon. A Man In Black 20:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons cited by Mel and Andrew. Fancruft surrounding fiction, not verified, apparently contradicted by available facts, no potential to become encyclopedic. It's clear that some editors are voting based on whether they like the topic, and are not differentiating among these three nominations by the criteria at WP:FICT, where a major character or a major race are treated differently than fan-generated, non-canonical speculation about a side issue. 205.247.102.130 20:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mel is right. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "theorized" - speculation. RickK 23:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could do with being cleaned-up, but it's still a valid encyclopaedic entry. --Sanguinus 09:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly fancruft. — Davenbelle 12:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. --Carnildo 20:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- mildly interesting, but non-notable in the grand scheme of Star Wars mythology. Fancruft at best, and irrelevant to canon to boot. Might eventually turn out to be interesting if it was an accepted part of Star Wars fanon, but I'm not even aware of it being that. Haikupoet 04:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not canon. Everyone lived happily ever after, that's why they all were dancing (badly) at the end of the film. It wasn't in those awful books set after the films either. Delete, lest be we swamped with articles like Theoretical genetic mutations that would have arisen if Leia had married Luke or The sex lives of Ewoks Sabine's Sunbird 05:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. VfD crusade or otherwise, this is still non-canonical and, while scientifically accurate, is also irrelevant, as Endor stopped being important to Star Wars basically the instant RotJ ended. Marblespire 07:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-canonical. Radiant_* 07:41, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The debate is large enough to be notable and as clearly mentioned in the article there are references in expanded universe canon, both for and against. I completely fail to see how including this damages Wikipedia's "venerability" - especially since our excessive width of knowledge is one of the biggest advantages! Star Wars Wiki is not a sister project of Wikipedia, what on Earth does it have to do with anything? --Kizor 09:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This debate has come up reasonably often in Star Wars fandom, the "canonicity" of it isn't relevant to its notability (and issues of canonicity are discussed within the article itself, in any event). Bryan 15:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't believe that some fans talking about an event that may or may not have happened in a series of fictional movies is an encyclopedia subject. DJ Clayworth 15:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Come on people, there's a reason why this stuff is called science-fiction! Instead of the directing all this energy into increasing the profitability of a major media franchise, why don't you put your considerable efforts into something meaningful? It's what Chewbacca would have wanted anyway-LOL! --Jleon 19:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...fancruft. --MikeJ9919 22:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-canonical fanwanking of the worst kind. Original research, not encyclopedic. Quale 05:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! Wikipedia is not the place for fan fiction. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 02:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The observations that underlie this article warrants a small mention in the article on the forest moon of Endor, but the rest of the article is non-cannonical fancruft, and possibly even original research --Bletch 00:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how anyone could reasonably make that statement. The article is written using the movies and at least three other articles as sources. SWTC, the The Truth about the "Endor Holocaust", and Pablo Hidalgo's statements in SW:Insider, and as far as we know, this article has not be contributed to by any of those authors. I think you're just yelling "fire" to get people to flee.--Eion 19:24, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the article needs to be edited to bring more emphasis to these sources, then that is understandable, but certainly not cause for deletion.--Eion 07:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I have vague recollections of seeing the Insider lying on my bro's bedside table (he is an immense star wars fan), the other two sources you cite look like nothing more than essays published online on fan sites. Are they considered canon? Are they even notable? Is every piece of fan speculation on anything that exists notable? This isn't about being pro or anti star wars (I love Star Wars), or even about how much genuine Star Wars information deserves to be on Wikipedia, this is about non-notable non-canon unverifiable speculation about something that didn't happen in a film. Sabine's Sunbird 00:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Star Wars Technical Commentaries have had their own Wikipedia article since Mar 2004, so they are certainly notable. SW:Insider is a magazine with wide circulation, so it is notable, and the last is a rebuttal to Curis Saxton's (of the SWTC) arguments, and is not that widely known, which is why I said only 2 of the 3 I would consider notable. This is a theory argued about inside the SW:Community, including among magazine editors and physicists. If you go to a convention, you are bound to find either view represented. This is not a test of notability, merely a demonstration of the relativity of notability. Walk into the physics department of a university and everyone knows that a quark is an elemental and indivisible subatomic particle; walk into a Star Trek convention, and Quark is a lovable Ferengi bartender.--Eion 13:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One could also look in Inside the Worlds of Star Wars: The Original Trilogy for a reference to the Endorian Holocaust, which is a book published by DK, and a part of the Star Wars canon.--Eion 13:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question I lack a bookstore where I live. And a library of back issues of insider. Do either of these two that you cite say anything more than "The Endor Holocaust never happened"? Do they cite canon explanations of why Endor was not trashed? If they did, then these should go on the endor article, but still don't make for an article of its own. Sabine's Sunbird 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Idle Comment. I'm often perplexed by the argument that certain things should be constrained to one article. I mean, it's going to take up approximately the same space in two articles, and its not like Wikipedia is ever going to run out of space, ever.--Eion 20:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. The term "cruft" is seriously offensive and irritating. And no, I'm not a Star Wars fan. Ketsy 00:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. It's a good article that shouldn't be compromised JUST becuase Wookieepedia has it. And besides anonymous IP addresses can't put articles up for Vfd. -- Riffsyphon1024 17:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Endorian_Holocaust&oldid=1086064509"