Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endor Holocaust (3rd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endor Holocaust

Renominated for the 2nd time in hope that discussion will generate a clearer community consensus. Previous nominations: 9 May 2005, 19 November 2005

Delete Per WP:NOT:

1.3.1 Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Wikipedia is not primary (original) research such as proposing theories.

1.8.3 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Speculation on fiction is still speculation. See WP:FICT

If this article is actually about the debate on whether the Endorian Holocaust actually happened then delete per WP:CITE or WP:VERIFY since no reputable sources can be provided to verify that the debate even exists. Also the current page for Forest moon of Endor has a section of the Endorian Holocaust, which states "The matter was finally settled with the release of the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Original Trilogy, which stated that following the Battle of Endor, Rebel ships prevented most of the larger pieces of debris from the Death Star's explosion from hitting the moon's surface, thus nullifying the theory that the forest moon was significantly damaged" This topic is null and void now. Page should be deleted. The stub in the Forest moon of Endor is all that is needed.--Geedubber 08:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Nothing has changed since the previous nomination four months ago, when these same issues were raised. This is article is not research or speculation original to Wikipedia, it is about other people's research and speculation - sources are cited liberally throughout. The nomination claims that no sources are provided to verify that the debate exists within the fandom when down at the bottom of the article in the clearly-labelled "external links" section are two links to very extensive pro- and con-Holocaust pages. As for the section in the article on the moon, after the first AfD an attempt was made to merge the whole subject in there and it was ultimately split back out again because it took up an inordinate amount of space there. Bryan 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that the point that fan discussions are not reliable verifiable sources was ever properly addressed. Ziggurat 08:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

They're reliable, verifiable sources for an article that's about fan discussions. I refer once again to Star Trek versus Star Wars. Bryan 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Things have changed. As I said above "The matter was finally settled with the release of the book Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Original Trilogy, which stated that following the Battle of Endor, Rebel ships prevented most of the larger pieces of debris from the Death Star's explosion from hitting the moon's surface, thus nullifying the theory that the forest moon was significantly damaged" This topic is null and void now. PS. can someone help me list this on today AfD page, I had trouble getting it on.--Geedubber 08:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

But that only supports my argument. If Inside the Worlds sees fit to address the issue, that indicates it's considered significant even in official circles. The "topic" is not nullified by this. Bryan 08:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. I think that proves that the discussion is cruft, not canon.--Geedubber 09:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the book addresses it in such a way that it's clear the moon was never damaged and that the supposed event never happened. I still think we can merge it in the Forest Moon article and note that it has been a significant discussion point between fans, but an entire article is overkill. Perhaps the forest moon article can get a link to the Star Wars Wiki. Surely they have a similar article there. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - The first two nominations did not reach consensus, but there are virtually no verifiable sources for this, so it should absolutely be deleted unless reliable sources of the information can be found. Ziggurat 08:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The article does cite sources. Most significantly, these sources indicate that the debate has some presence within "official" material:
    • In one of the Star Wars Tales comics, an Imperial veteran of Endor makes an apparent reference to the holocaust theory, after telling the story of his unit's trouble with the Ewoks in a bar. Another character dismisses it as a myth, saying that most of the Death Star's mass was obliterated in the explosion, and that the Rebels "took care of the rest."
    • Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy describes how the Rebels managed to use shields and tractor beams to protect their strike team on the moon of Endor
    • The First issue of 2005's X-Wing minisiers from Dark Horse comics, begins one week after the battle and shows Rebel ships dousing a forest fire begat by debris from the Death Star.
  • And of course the two external links at the bottom of the article show how much attention has gone into the issue in the unofficial "fan" community. Other sources are cited throughout the article when specific issues such as the Ewok's survival post-RotJ are discussed. Bryan 08:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability requires multiple reliable sources about the topic, and the information contained within the topic. Of the three official sources you cite, only one of them even alludes to the possibility of an Endorian Holocaust ("apparently"), and contains none of the information about it presented in the article. The other two refer to circumstances around the destruction of the second Death Star but don't actually talk about even a hypothetical Endorian Holocaust. Fan discussion is not verifiable, and the overuse of phrases like "are speculated to be", "Pro-holocaust debaters", "some also argue", and "has been proposed by fans" are indicative of inherent unsourced POV. Which fans? How many? How do you know this is a representative sample? Are you referring to Internet fandom only? This is the reason that verifiability is required, because these claims are not falsifiable or provable in any reputable source. Ziggurat 20:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fire when ready, commander. Sorry, that should be delete. In May last year I said 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. 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., comments I stand by. It has been defended as an article about the debate but it clearly isn't that, listing as it does every reference used in said debate. It is the debate. And as a debate meme it isn't notable as say, Star Wars versus Star Trek. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So books don't count? Star Wars books are canon too. Just because it wasn't in the film doesn't mean it's unimportant. Feel free to vote delete, but don't use the argument it wasn't in the film on its own. You need to address the comics, books and other media too. - 131.211.210.17 09:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • All books and comics refered to suggest it never happened. The only people who do are fans. Thus, Cruft.--Geedubber 09:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly. In the books and comics that I have read (in some cases to my misfortune, Kevin J Anderson should be thrown into the Sarlac) that had references to Endor, said forest moon and it's irritating furry semi-sapient race were fine. Ergo it never happened. Thus not only is the debate pointless and daft in the extreme, but it is not a debate that has garnered any interest from the world outside (and therefore been reported in the media in the same way that Star Wars versus Star Trek has). As such while maybe worthy of a brief mention on the Endor page (with the citations being used to show why the wretched place survived) or fthe Star Wars fandom page, it does not require a detailed examination of the evidence on it's own page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic conjecture. It's original research/speculation about a fictional event that exists only in fanon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• STRONG KEEP. One thing deletionists forget is that this article is NOT about the theory itself. This article is about the PHENOMENON among the Star Wars fandom. It's purpose is to explain the issue, and give the two points of view. Please take that into consideration. The Wookieepedian 15:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, I forgot so badly that I wrote it is not a debate that has garnered any interest from the world outside (and therefore been reported in the media in the same way that Star Wars versus Star Trek has) and It has been defended as an article about the debate but it clearly isn't that, listing as it does every reference used in said debate. It is the debate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "among the Star Wars fandom" exactly! that means it is cruft!--Geedubber 19:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good grief, weren't two AFDs enough? --maru (talk) contribs 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as speculation, trivia, and industrial-strength fancruft. It's a real testament to the systemic bias against reality that this wasn't deleted sooner. Brian G. Crawford 20:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Isn't there a Star Wars webspace or Wiki that this can live on instead? A description of the phenomenon experienced by some fans as they speculate about unfilmed non-canonical happenings. This appears to be on the upper limits of fancruft.  (aeropagitica)  21:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Completely neutral comment added only for information: Yes. Silly Dan 22:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:(aeropagitica). --Hetar 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and mention it in the Endor article. --Tone 21:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The paragraph this gets in Forest moon of Endor is more than enough. David Sneek 22:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with David Sneek that the paragraph in Forest moon of Endor is enough, and the whole thing is non-canonical at any rate (a notice on the Wookieepedia article notes that "Events, opinions, and individuals described in this arcticle are neither present in any authorized source nor claimed to occur in the Star Wars universe"). It might be worth adding the two external links from Endor Holocaust to the main Endor article, so people can read the arguments for themselves if they really care, but a seperate article is too much, even for me. I love Star Wars, but this is really exactly what Wookieepedia exists for. BryanG 22:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete'. Wikipedia is not a crystalball for hypothetical fictional futures. Bucketsofg 23:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean hypothetical fictional pasts? In a galaxy far far away? *grin* Ziggurat 23:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Future" refers to ROTJ as the starting point, I guess. But nevertheless, we can't say if the Star Wars events happened in the past or future compared to our time. Their location in the timeline is simply unknown. - Sikon 04:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I always assumed that the "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" in the opening of Star Wars referred to its relationship to our time and location. Not that it's important... :-) Ziggurat 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The event is conjectural and exists only in fans' minds. We hardly need articles about fans' discussions. Imarek 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fictional constructs all include some degree of internal inconsistency, and vanishingly few examples of such inconsistency are notable. Theories attempting to explain the inconsistencies away are even less notable. Monicasdude 00:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete When this article was available I was/Drinkin Colt .45's with lando/I was hanging out in the cantina on mos eisley/...Original reeeeasearch where are you tonight/ and who's laying right there by your side./ Everynight, I AFD with you / And I wake up alone. (shamelessly ripped from the Blink 182 song and perverted to my standards). ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete whether OR or a compilation of references from the Star Wars media giant, its cruft at its cruftiest. The mention in the Endor article is plenty. Thatcher131 01:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge what little can be saved into Forest moon of Endor. Redirect works, too. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 7 April 2006 @ 02:14 (UTC)
• Delete better location identified above by Silly Dan --Ajdz 02:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ajdz. --Khoikhoi 02:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteMontco 03:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. The article is interesting, but I don't consider the debate to be as significant as, say, Han shot first. Therefore I say condense the article and merge it into either Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars or a totally-revamped Physics and Star Wars article (or both). -- wacko2 03:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This stuff belongs to Wookieepedia. - Sikon 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, highlighting what has been said above: non-notable fan speculation. Belongs on Wookieepedia. Sandstein 16:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not just a non-canonical name, a non-canonical interpretation. See a similar discussion (which resulted in delete) at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Hogwarts (2nd nomination). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.