Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Empire Strikes Back (disambiguation)/archive1

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 was no consensus. Sandstein 12:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Empire Strikes Back (disambiguation)

The Empire Strikes Back (disambiguation) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The article is nothing but a disambiguation page for a term that is only ever used to refer to that one film. Even if it has been used in references to the Falklands War, any use of the term in this sense is just a joke that barely, if not doesn't, deserve mention on this website.
VolatileChemical 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 13:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - a significant number of uses of the phrase do not refer to Star Wars. Further there are several meanings witht in Star Wars, I have listed a few on the dab page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07 17 December 2006 (GMT).
• Delete per nom. This a term that refers to the one film. No one is going to be searching for articles about the other uses with this term. Nuttah68 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As a disambig page, the fact that there are multiple articles that use "TESB (whatever)" is enough for me to keep it. It should probably be linked in a few more places, but as a navigational aid, I see it's purpose. I would however, suggest adding it into the pages so it does serve that purpose. Mister.Manticore 17:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact there are numerous articles connected to this title -- regardless if they are related to the same topic or not -- justify a disambiguation page. See also Thunderball, The Man with the Golden Gun, The Saint and Bladerunner for examples of disambiguation pages focusing primarily on one venue of use. 23skidoo 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a useful disambig page, since there are several articles listed on it that seem valid. However, per VolatileChemical, I would suggest removing the mention of anything that is clearly just a pun on the main use of the phrase, like the Microsoft lawsuit, maybe everything in that "By analogy" section. delldot | talk 00:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per 23skidoo and delldot. Maxamegalon2000 03:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Though used for one film, the one article on the one film is long. To have separate pages for the film, book, and game seems appropriate. The article indicates (unsourced) that the book contains more information than the movie. In that case, the book and movie are not the same. Thus, a disambig page is helpful. On the other hand, it seems like all of the disambig articles are indeed mentioned on the main film page and then expanded in the separate articles. It seems the film article acts as its own disambig. JeremyBicha 04:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All seven articles in the first two sections are valid targets of someone looking up that title. The items in the By analogy section are not. Please remmove them. -Freekee 04:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As long as at two items belong on a legitimate disambiguation page, the page is legitimate from an AFD perspective. Specific content concerns can be left to the regular editing process. Everything before the "By Analogy" section is definitely legitimate. GRBerry 03:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but remove non-Star Wars sections. Disambig pages are there for distinguishing between articles or concepts that may share the same name, not for every mention of this-or-that headline using the term to describe something else. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 15:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per JeremyBicha. If we really needed this disambiguation page, then the main TESB article would have an {{Otheruses}} template. As it is, I'm not sure how anyone would ever come across this dab page. There really is no ambiguity and the TESB does a good job of directing interested readers to the other articles.--Kubigula (talk) 04:16, 21 December 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.