Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endor Holocaust

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, once again, no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 03:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Endor Holocaust

Renominated; this article previously survived an AfD through no consensus here. This is original research / speculation / hypothesizing about non-canon parts of Star Wars, and as per Wikipedia:Cite sources, no reputable sources can be provided to verify any of the guesswork in the article. Reputable sources (a requirement for verifiability in Wikipedia) include newspaper articles, book citations, academic papers; they do not include one website's technical commentaries on the films/books/etc., which this article is derived from. Some quotes from the source website:

• "There is an emphasis on topics inadequately covered by offline references."
• "All original contributions are acknowledged." (c.f. acknowledgements on the Endor Holocaust page)
• "Also note that these pages have no relation to real physics work; the project intends to rationalise a fantasy. This hobby simply uses the methods and language of science to consider the question: 'If the STAR WARS universe were real, how would its phenomena be understood?'"

The subject matter is already covered in the correct place for it: the Endorian Holocaust on Wookieepedia, so it shouldn't be here. Ziggurat 21:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fancruft. Something that is unproven even within the fictional context? Give me strength! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Forest moon of Endor. I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, but I found this one interesting. The fact that the Star Wars franchise (a comic) has referenced it makes it worthy of mention, in my mind. Not as its own article, though- it would really help the forest moon's article. CanadianCaesar 22:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Verifiability refers to both inclusion of a topic and inclusion of content - and none of the content here is mentioned in said comic. Ziggurat 22:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• 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)
  • ...and that's still my vote now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article was merged into the forest moon's article last time around and wound up being a disproportionately large section on that page. It got split back out again as a result. Nothing much has changed since then, so re-merging will probably result in re-splitting again. As for the "cruftiness" of the article, we've got something just as extensive on the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate, so why not? It's not original research in that it's an article describing other people's original research, as referenced in the external links. Those are secondary sources. Bryan 00:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

And they are not legitimate sources according to Wikipedia:Cite sources, therefore it is original research (OR: "it introduces an argument without citing a reputable source, which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position"). Ziggurat 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There was question raised about this on the article's talk page a while back, here: Talk:Endor Holocaust#Original research?. Here are the references I counted back then:

• The second Death Star was a sphere of machinery somewhere between 180 and 900 kilometers in diameter (depending on the sources one holds to be authoritative)... (these sources are discussed in detail in the Death Star article)
• it has been established in Star Wars comics and novels that some Ewoks had been removed from Endor in the past for use as pets or slaves... (Source needs to be made explicit, but this at least suggests that one exists)
• Some Expanded Universe sources maintain that Endor was not significantly affected by the destruction of the Death Star and life continues there as normal. One other suggested it was destroyed, but the author had taken pains to paint it as Imperial propaganda... (These sources also need to be made explicit)
• In one of the Star Wars Tales comics, an Imperial veteran of Endor makes an apparent reference to the holocaust theory... (Again, it'd be nice to get a reference for exactly which comic)
• In the 'Jedi Academy Trilogy', by Kevin J. Anderson... (this source is very explicit)
• "Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy" describes how the Rebels... (same here)
• The two Ewok telefilms are set on a non-devastated Endor... (these are The Ewok Adventure and Ewoks: Battle for Endor)

The sources I noted as needing to be made more specific don't appear to have been filled in yet, but that's an argument for improving the article rather than deleting it. Bryan 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of those sources do not refer to the Endor Holocaust at all; the inclusion of facts related to the speculation is irrelevant to a discussion of the speculation itself. Of the sources listed:

1. The information about the size of the Death Star is not in contention, the OR discussion of how those facts are interpreted is; the unverified weasel phrases like "are speculated" need to be verified, and no sources do that.

2. The comics and novels talk about Ewoks being removed from Endor, a fact which is completely unrelated to the verifiability of the Endor Holocaust.

3. The sources alluded to flatly contradict the Endor Holocaust, and again it is not mentioned by those sources, with the exception of 4. below. More weasel phrases and unverified worded misdirection: "Pro-Holocaust debaters speculate that".

4. This is the only legitimate source that actually talks about the Endor Holocaust, and it is only mentioned in passing. Using only this source - as Wikipedia is supposed to - would produce a one-paragraph article.

5. This source again flatly contradicts the possibility of the Holocaust but *does not mention it*. Again, facts are being used as Original Research - the facts are not in contention, what they are being used for is.

6. Weasel words again: "by possible implication"? Again, no mention of an Endor Holocaust.

7. Another flat contradiction of the Holocaust, without the Holocaust being mentioned.

In summary (sorry for the long post; gosh it's fun being an Endor Holocaust denier!) the facts are verified, but their relationship to the original research that is this article is almost entirely negative. So the argument to keep it is based on all the verified evidence in the fiction that contradicts it?

Ziggurat 10:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the point of a Wikipedia article on something like this. The point is not to prove that the Holocaust "happened". The point is to describe the arguments that have been had about it. This distinction is demanded by the NPOV policy. All those sources that "contradict" the Holocaust are still quite relevant to the argument itself, as are the sources that only address background issues that are frequently used by people who are participating in the argument (size of Death Star, extinction of Ewoks, etc).

All these issues about references and original research had been raised on the article's talk page long ago and had been left there without argument or comment. It would have been nice if you'd tried addressing them there rather than diving straight into an AfD nomination where these sorts of extensive discussions tend to clutter the process. Bryan 19:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I understand what it's trying to do; I'm contending that there is no demonstration that the discussion has existed anywhere but in the realms of fanboards, and that it therefore fails verifiability requirements. Bryan provided some sources for the facts in the article, but none of these demonstrate that the *discussion* has existed in a verifiable source. I'm pointing out that all the sources listed (bar one, as mentioned) don't even mention the Endor Holocaust, so they do not contribute anything to the verifiability of the topic. I've listed this as an AfD rather than aim to improve the article because my research suggests that the premise of the article is itself unverifiable. Ziggurat 21:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

But now we're back to those external links at the bottom, whose mere existence is evidence showing that the discussion is ongoing in the SW community and reasonably extensive. Googling "Endor Holocaust" comes up with a great many more, including a mention on the "Howstuffworks" site (which is relatively "mainstream" as these things go). Again I draw analogy to the Star Trek versus Star Wars debate, which is exclusively an online phenomenon like this one. Bryan 22:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

That debate *does* have legitimate sources, e.g. Forbes on Trek vs. Wars; Salon on Trek vs. Wars. Ziggurat 00:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Bryan's points. Jtmichcock 01:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as notable, because of the mention in the book Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy. Carioca 01:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of SW fandom. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. My explanation for it is a bit long, so enjoy it User:Kazuaki_Shimazaki here. Kazuaki Shimazaki 12:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The discussion of the legitimacy of the SWTC source is the most convincing part of this argument (I'm using OR in its technical sense, as an article lacking legitimate sources; perhaps verifiability would have been a better use of the terminology?), however the description of the site as a personal hobby of the author, and one unaffiliated and unsupported by Lucasfilm, in my opinion undermines that legitimacy. In any case, Wikipedia dictates *multiple* legitimate sources to prevent overly hypothetical irrelevancies like this appearing. As esoterica, it belongs in Wookieepedia, not Wikipedia. Ziggurat 21:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it's fan fiction and we don't keep fan fiction. Gazpacho 06:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP. This has been a major debate among the fan community for years, and has generated multiple technical documents and commentaries on both sides of the debate. The debate does have some official involvement and legitimacy, in that physicist, Dr. Curtis Saxton, who once did an in-depth article (which is in the external links in the wikipedia Endor Holocaust article) about and explaining why he supports this issue, is the author of the Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith incredible cross-sections, which are official works from Lucasfilm that give technical analysis for parts of the Star Wars universe. Gary M. Sarli, another physicist has even written an entire paper (which is also linked to on the Endor Holocaust wikipedia page) on the issue, explaining, using mathematical models, why the holocaust couldn't have happened. And the fact that Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy mentions the issue and Howstuffworks.com elaqborates on it, should be enough to show the legitimacy of the debate. This issue has proven to notable. This article is of a similar nature to Star Trek versus Star Wars in that the subject may be rediculous, but at the same time is notable. Even the canonocity of the destruction of the Endor moon has been disputed. The Wookieepedian 09:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fan fiction and speculation. This can be handled in a condensed form in the Endor article. We don't need to mention every thing any fan has ever said about this. Gamaliel 09:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, this is not merely some random thing a fan speculated. This has been going on for years and is well-known throughout the fan community. It is not original research, it is explaining someone elses original research, and gives the two sides of the debate, while giving reputable sources inthe external links. It is just as notable as Star Trek versus Star Wars. The Wookieepedian 09:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This lengthy, verbose discussion of a relatively insignificant topic does not need its own article. We can take the bits that aren't speculation or original research and put it in Endor in about a single paragrah. The rest is just fanwanking. And I say that as a fanboy who has done more than my share of wanking. Gamaliel 09:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • As another user stated, if you attempt to combine this with the Endor article, it will end up being slit off again into this article. The Wookieepedian 11:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
        • I think you might be missing the point. This is not just speculation, it's speculation about something which isn't even in the real world, having its roots in fanfic. It is unencyclopaedic, and its significance outside of a small subset of Star Wars fans is precisely zero. FIJAGH! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm VERY aware of that. But, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, as Star Wars seems to hold a certain place of notability of wikipedia, as far as what is allowed. The Wookieepedian 17:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Star Wars is notable. Elements of the fictional Star Wars universe are arguably notable. Arguments between fans about the past "history" of these fictional elements have no obvious place in a general encyclopaedia. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
        • It won't be split off again if it is significantly condensed, which can be easily done. Gamaliel 18:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation not suitable for a general-purpose encyclopedia that Wikipedia is. - Sikon 10:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, this article isn't speculation. It's about speculation. An article that's about speculation can be perfectly factual in describing it. Bryan 01:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's notable enough. Thanos6 04:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Bryan. This is a very real debate among fans, so much so that it's addressed in official sources. -LtNOWIS 10:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• How many fans, and to what extent would any user of a general encyclopaedia give a toss? You make a great case for this being covered on a fansite, but WP:ISNOT a fan site. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: it's a direct consequence of the movie. Quite possibly cut down and merge with the Endor page, but definitely keep the content. Neocapitalist 21:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, technically, direct consequences of the movie are things like George Lucas's immense wealth. I think what you're saying is that if you imagine what goes on after the movie's over, this is one thing a lot of people might imagine. Is that really sufficient justification for a keep? I can imagine a lot of things that might be further fictional consequences of fictional events, but I don't see why an encyclopedia should document them all. --William Pietri 04:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia; the onus is on deleters to prove why an article should be deleted, not on anybody else to constantly prove an article's worth. Sources have been cited, and the article has survived this once already; the second in particular is heavily in favor of it staying in my book. Repeated VfDs are just pointless. Rogue 9 01:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• You are asking for proof of a negative. I can't find anywhere in the various criteria for inclusion which states that speculative fan fiction is either included or excluded. FIJAGH, but WP:ISNOT a fanzine. You say repeated VfDs are pointless, I'd say arguing over the supposed "history" of a fictional construct is pretty pointless too! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly, but arguing over the history of a fictional construct is at least enjoyable for those concerned; (personal attack removed). 216.49.117.88 14:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Let's keep it civil please. Gamaliel 21:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, he had a point, which is more than you can say for this VfD. Anyway, my vote stays as is. You've had your shot at deleting this, you failed. I refuse to participate in double jeopardy. Now, to quote Willy Wonka, you LOSE. Good DAY, sir! Rogue 9 15:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not about 'winning' and 'losing', it's about what's appropriate for Wikipedia. The last AfD listed this as 'no consensus', which means just that: there was no consensus about whether the article should be kept or not, and that in cases of no consensus Wikipedia errs on the side of keeping things, as it should. It appears that there still isn't consensus (unfortunately), but that's a good reason to keep debating it, not stop. Ziggurat 22:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; fancruft is bad enough; speculative fancruft about what might have occurred outside the canon of a popular work is not encyclopedic. MCB 02:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • But in this case, the fan fiction is notable, and has been discussed VERY frequently and in great depth for years. Plu it's been covered by several physicists who are also fans. The Wookieepedian 04:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I could possibly buy a short general-audience article about the fan controversy over this, something similar to Star Trek versus Star Wars. But most of this isn't documenting the debate; it is the debate. We recently deleted another piece of literary criticism, List of factual inaccuracies of the book Angels and Demons, and this seems even less plausibly part of an encyclopedia. I'd vote Transwiki if there weren't already a better article on Wookiepedia. --William Pietri 04:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is, but we must keep an article here about it as well. The Wookieepedian 05:38, 28 November 2005 (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.