Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Jedi Purge

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 KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:56, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Jedi Purge

Is every single fictional battle in the Star Wars universe notable and encyclopedic, or is this just far too granular? With 92 unique googles, should this be merged or purged? As always, please explain your vote. --GRider\^talk 23:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep part of a well-documented, interlinked series of articles on Star Wars events. 12 different articles link to it (not counting the VfD) so deleting it would just make lots of redlinks and it would eventually be recreated anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge all items in the Great Cruft Purge. Kappa 00:35, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a major thing, and Episode III will detail it. And Kappa, you're right, this is a "cruft purge". -- Riffsyphon1024 03:02, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Man, you really shoulda taken it slow with the cruft nominations. I mean, Or at least stuck to the more minor of the stuff. Like people have been saying, this is pretty damn major.-LtNOWIS 03:11, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not sure how I feel about this. Can supporters give some examples of notable fictional events, especially battles, that would have their own article outside the coverage of the piece of fiction? Something outside geekdom (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Star Trek and the like) would be more convincing. Demi 03:40, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
  • Oh, thanks for classifying us already, Demi. This article is about the killing of the Jedi during and after Episode III. Since III has not come out yet, no one can automatically confirm what will be seen and whatnot, not to mention a spillage of spoilers that I would not want to see myself. I know that the end of the Clone Wars and the Purge are related, in the way that Palpatine takes over as Emperor using deceit and betrayal. So I'm a geek. Sue me. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:51, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry if you construed what I said as insulting; I didn't mean it that way. I'm a geek, too, but what I'm saying is this: is this applicable outside its narrow constituency? There are plenty of works of fiction as notable or more notable than Star Wars; do we enumerate and examine their plot points in articles of their own? So far, I think not, but I'm willing to be convinced; and you didn't answer my question. Demi 05:48, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
      • For one thing, the Purge didn't have any established battles. They just took everything over and executed like the Nazis did. That's where real-life parallels are made. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:15, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting thing just happened. A Star Wars Wiki just popped up. We will then probably move all this over there. Also, on another note, I often wonder why every Star Trek episode is allowed to have an article. Refer to List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes for an example. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:39, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably because there are large numbers of Star Trek-loving wikipedians. Kappa 11:38, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Skywalker keep. Oh, the irony. This one is just too good to pass up. So when did you join the Dark Side Mr. Deleety-Deleterson? —RaD Man (talk) 04:33, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 07:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Can I be clear here - is this an article about a fictional event that we don't know about because the film hasn't been released yet? Average Earthman 10:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This has always been known about, however Episode III may be the first movie to show this in action. Then again, it may remain purely EU. (But what do I care now when we have a Star Wars Wiki that this can go into). -- Riffsyphon1024 10:32, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Not sufficiently notable on its own. Martg76 17:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Surely Wikipedia does not need an article on a fictional battle in a movie that hasn't been released yet. Maybe when Episode III is released, we can come back to it and see if it really is something worth writing about seperately. (Although probably even then I'd favor just including it in the article on Episode III.) Remes 20:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Changing my vote to Transwiki to Star Wars Wiki. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Whatever is ultimately decided here, can it be moved /Precedents to help with criteria for the notability of fictional phenomena and events? Demi 22:01, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think individual plot points or phenomena from a work of fiction (no matter how notable the work is), is notable unless it has greater usage outside its own fans. I can't see The Trial of Alice from Alice in Wonderland having its own article. Demi 22:07, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
• Delete. Battle of Hastings, yep, this, nope. Wyss 02:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Provided that it's given the proper context, etc. If we have an article on Ewoks, then I don't see why we can't have one on this. Binadot 05:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. If this article is moved to the Star Wars wiki, what will happen to all the other articles concerning anything about the Star Wars Expanded Universe and films of Star Wars? There certainly are a lot and it would be a major project to move them all. Is it necessary to partially or completely purge a subject if its own wiki pops up? Aeolien 03:36, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
  • Ask GRider. He was unaware of this Wookieepedia until very recently, and still he submits articles for deletion based on their Google hits. I am busy moving a ton over, mostly minor things noone cares about (at least most people). -- Riffsyphon1024 10:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment - I certainly don't think that we should remove info from Wikipedia just because a different wiki opens up. All info available on Wikipedia is available somewhere else be it on other websites or in books &c b/c there isn't supposed to be any original research, the point is we want to create a free encyclopedia here... Unless there is a Wikimedia project established or there is a Meta policy established to link Wikipedia and the Star Wars wiki, I think info should stay, even if it is copied over to the SWW. -- Lochaber 13:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. -- Bryce
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:50 Z
• Keep until it can be transferred into the Star Wars Wiki. --GenkiNeko 03:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Golbez 02:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I'd just like to point out that "Transwiki" means "move to another wikimedia project," not "let's put this in some other wiki." Whether it appears in another wiki shouldn't influence whether we delete or keep it. -- Demi ^T/_C 04:21, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
• Keep. Events of this magnitude in any universe that is covered in Wikipedia should have their own article. Basic facts have already been covered as backstory to the later works. Changes can be made when the events in Episode III are revealed.—Jrquinlisk 04:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Based on what I've seen, I revote for Keep. Wookieepedia has a copy of it however. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:51, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-We can add more info when Episode III comes out. I think this should stay.- B-101 15:17, 25 Mar 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.