Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (third nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, so keep. Pity indeed the administrator who sorts this one out. It would seem to be the opinion of the keep voters that the article has indeed acquired referencing. This is often the goal of deletion nominations which rest on the question of referencing and verifibility (if it can be referenced, then it shall be kept). No clear consensus to delete; "cruft" has never been a criteria even though we've all done it at one time or another. On a further note, this is the third nomination in three months. Absent strong consensus this is not inappropriate, although a fourth nomination would need to address different criteria. Mackensen (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lightsaber combat (third nomination)

  • First AfD.
  • Second AfD (new name).
  • Strong delete. This article is a textbook definition of original research. In its original nomination for deletion nearly a month ago, and in the defense mounted during the subsequent deletion review, the most convincing arguments to be kept were made by those suggesting that the material was good but that they would need to prepare citations from "games and several books" or from various other references. Since the time of the article's nominations coming up on three weeks ago, no efforts at improving the article's references have been made [1], although the article has been actively edited by many editors. To me, this demonstrates a lack of interest in bringing this article up to Wikipedia verifiability standards. Other keep votes during the original AfD had no substantive policy support behind them, only using phrases such as "this is important" and "this is interesting" and "it does no harm" and "it really helps out my Jedi Academy clan" which offer no supportive Wikipedia policy for keeping an uncited, unverified original-research article on Wikipedia. — Mike • 17:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Clerical note. I'm sure others will argue that I've nominated this again too soon. I disagree. Wikipedia's deletion policy states that "[t]here is no strict policy or consensus for a specific time between nominations," and the community of Star Wars fan editors on Wikipedia have had several weeks since the original nomination was opened to improve this article with regards to its citation of sources and its verifiability. I do not consider this an "immediate" renomination. — Mike • 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • CLERICAL NOTE REGARDING MERGE AND/OR TRANSWIKI VOTES. For those who would vote to merge and/or transwiki, please clarify whether or not your vote stands for preservation or elimination of the material, as some closing admins have in the past interpreted merging and transwiki-ing as keep and delete votes, respectively. Furthermore, please note that you may instead wish to vote either as a straight keep or as a straight delete, as Wookieepedia already has an article on lightsaber combat. — Mike • 18:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • When this nomination began, it was listed as Lightsaber combat (second nomination). During the course of this nomination, it became clear that the article had been nominated once before under a different name. I went through and renamed lightsaber combat's first nomination as a second nomination (correcting references), and then renamed this nomination as a third nomination (correcting references). However, when I nominated this, I was only aware of it having gone through one other nomination; I was assuming that when someone referred to it have gone through "two other nominations," one of the two they were referring was the article's deletion review. Hopefully, though, the matter is now clarified. — Mike • 15:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wookieepedia. Strong Delete. Worst sort of fancruft imaginable. Tevildo 18:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Opinion upgraded. This sort of thing shouldn't be here. Non-notable, original research. Tevildo 18:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. The AFD was closed 11 days ago as Keep, it hasn't even been two weeks, let alone several. This is ridiculous. 11 days is still too soon, especially if we're dealing with non-full time, non-professional editors. hateless 18:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • response It has been three weeks since the date the article was first nominated — June 6, 2006 + 21 days (3 weeks) = June 27, 2006. Nothing prevented editors from cleaning up the article while it was being considered for deletion — in fact, that's often a common tactic used to save articles from deletion, as was seen in Lost: The Journey — when someone completely rewrote it during a deletion review of the article's second nomination, it pretty much saved the article — it was relisted and its third nomination looks to be either a straight keep or a keep by no consensus, when it was definitely going to the graveyard before. Star Wars editors have had the opportunity to rescue this article for three weeks now — they've done nothing to the article's citations, although they HAVE done a plethora of other wikilinking and tweaking. It's obvious there's no desire to bring this up to Wikipedia's verifiability standards, and so, it needs to come for community review again. — Mike • 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fancruft. Artw 18:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - When an article is threatened with deletion, most editors scurry around and do something to improve it within an hour or two. Three weeks is plenty. Besides, there's nothing to say it can't be taken off to a sandbox or a personal site and improved. --Dweller 18:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Klingon language, seems to be comparably notable. - Wickning1 18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Klingon language may be equally notable but that article is not original research. The Klingon Language was created in detail and research has not been required to piece it together from espisodes and novels etc. In this case this material is being pieced together for teh first time before our eyes.--Nick Y. 01:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Many wikipedia articles combine information from multiple sources. Read WP:OR carefully. I see no evidence of suppositions, no interpretive claims, no original ideas, just information compiled from many different pieces of fiction, all of which are verifiable as Lucas canon. I understand what you're saying, that's exactly why my keep is weak, but it's a very subtle difference. (minorly edited) - Wickning1 05:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Update Upgraded to Keep after article update - it's been made explicitly clear that this info is canon, and not a work of originally researched fan fiction. - Wickning1 21:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is the definition of original research. However, since it just survived an AFD and a DRV, you will probably have eleventy billion people citing the new speedy keep criteria where basically if you survive an AFD, you get a six-month get out of jail free card. At any rate, the patently wrong decision was made before. There are a disproportionately high number of redlinked users who basically said "keep because I like it". The concern that it is completely and totally original research was never addressed by anyone advocating keep in the first AFD. This is a textbook, obvious delete. If I were to write a similar article about a subject which did not have such devoted and loyal followers, it would probably be unanimous. Unfortunately, however, the popularity of Star Wars does not allow the WP:NOR policy to be violated. BigDT 19:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, by the way, apparantly the new WP:SK guideline has now been removed ... go figure ... BigDT 19:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, it appears from a brief perusal of that page as if the individual who added that guideline added it in so he could then refer to it in an AfD. Nice. Gotta love keeping your policy on a wiki. ;-) — Mike • 19:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Someone posted this a while back in a userbox debate ... it's a great quote ... from Alice in Wonderland ... I absolutely love it and it's very relevant to this discussion. At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out `Silence!' and read out from his book, `Rule Forty-two. ALL PERSONS MORE THAN A MILE HIGH TO LEAVE THE COURT.' Everybody looked at Alice. `I'M not a mile high,' said Alice. `You are,' said the King. `Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen. `Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice: `besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.' `It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King. `Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice. The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. BigDT 19:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Beautiful. :-) — Mike • 20:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
        • For the record, no, actually, I didn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep One. It is a great resource on lightsabre combat with the forms coming from Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. Two. Stop being childish and keep on nominating a wiki page. If it fails to be deleted the first time, stop nominating the page. User:Lord_Hawk 20:16, 26 Jine 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Lightsabre combat belongs on Wookieepedia. Tevildo 20:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Response First, sources mean nothing if they're not documented within the article itself. If you'd like to take the time to bring the article up to a situation where it's adequately referenced and sourced, all the more power to you. Second, there are articles on Wikipedia that have been nominated for deletion for five or more times, because despite being on a popular subject, they flagrantly violate one of Wikipedia's policies. This article is in the same vein. And lest you forget, Lord Hawk, as a Wikipedia editor, you are not supposed to engage in personal attacks. — Mike • 20:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please note that being "a great resource" is not a criterion for inclusion. There are plenty of things that are "great resources" that are not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhosting service. The Wookieepedia article - http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Lightsaber_combat - covers basically the same content as this one. The Virginia Tech message board is a "great resource" of football knowledge, but I wouldn't suggest pasting everything that everyone says there into a Wikipedia article. Further, I would remind you of the WP:NPA and WP:AGF policies. There is no warrant for believing that this is a childish nomination or anything other than a good faith attempt to remove unencyclopedic content. BigDT 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - it may not be the best cited article around, but most of the material appears to have been taken from official and/or authorized Lucasfilm publications, and not "original research" as others have incorrectly claimed. TheRealFennShysa 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Per above, and also per Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references." — Mike • 20:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:NOR lists under "what is excluded", "It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." In other words, if an article is using words that are not a part of an every day vocabulary and does not provide a citation for those terms, it is assumed to be original research. There is no burden to prove that an article is original research, rather, an article needs to prove based on citing sources that it is NOT original research. BigDT 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article provides information that is very helpful in understanding the Star Wars saga, which everyone agrees is a legitimate topic for an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.211.82.5 (talk • contribs)
    • Please note that being helpful, useful, etc, is not a criterion for inclusion. Things that are interesting to the people who care about them are deleted every day. BigDT 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as per nom. Transwiki to Wookiepdia if creators so desire (I imagine its already all there though). Ready the Death Star!!! Bwithh 21:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I found the article to be interesting and informative. What's not to like? Nonsuch 23:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment As said above, whether an article is interesting is not a reason, per Wikipedia policy, to keep the article. There's no Wikipedia:Interestingness. — Mike • 23:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. I don't feel enough time has passed since the last AfD/DRV, but there's been no move to improve referencing since then. I'm not going to bend on verifibility a second time. (Note to closing admin: If the referencing has been significantly improved by the end of the discussion, please discount this - I'll be on vacation and won't be able to withdraw it myself.) BryanG(talk) 23:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Article closed as keep 12 days ago. --JJay 00:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There's no such WP:SK guideline to support your comment. — Mike • 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Very rapid renoms violate the spirit of deletion policy. They disrespect the previous community consensus- in this case, established just twelve days ago as Keep with massive participation. --JJay 10:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Response Putting aside the issue that a comment such as the one you've made above assumes bad faith on my part, deletion policy specifically states that there's not even a consensus for a specific time between nominations, and three weeks to sufficiently clean up an article strikes me as plenty when you're dealing with a fan community as robust and active and defensive of their articles as Wikipedia's Star Wars fan community is. Furthermore, an article that does not verify its content and that contains original research, as said above, contains problems that, by policy, automatically supercede community consensus. Finally, the community's "consensus" last time was largely a matter of ballot-stuffing by individuals whose supportive reasoning made no cites to Wikipedia policy and, with most votes, directly contradicted same. — Mike • 11:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not at all clear why you think I am assuming bad faith, although you are clearly assuming bad faith regarding my vote- further demonstrated by your attempts to move my comment out of context. A renom 11 days after a close = a speedy renom. I see no need for it following a keep result. In those cases, I always vote speedy keep, which is perfectly valid and in no way precluded by policy. It also does not in any way reflect on you, particularly as I have no idea what motivated your renom. I would suggest you try to WP:AGF regarding all participants in this discussion. --JJay 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I think I may have been a little hairtrigger the first time I accused you of assuming bad faith, JJay, and for that, I'll withdraw the comment here and apologize to you; but the above portion of your comment — "further demonstrated by your attempts to move my comment out of context" — is a textbook assumption of bad faith. I also honestly have no idea what you mean when you suggest I'm assuming bad faith behind your vote itself — I'm instead saying that you have no supportive guideline for speedy keep, which is a very specific item, outlined at WP:SK. Just as if someone votes to speedy-delete in a discussion, they need to provide why it matches under the speedy-delete guidelines (and not just general deletion guidelines), if you vote speedy keep in a discussion, you need to provide why it matches under the speedy-keep guidelines (and not just general keep guidelines). As for moving your comments, it was not to "move them out of context," as you suggest, but because the first time you wrote the above comment, you gave it a single bullet. That placed it not as a reply, but as a new comment in the main stream of the discussion. Votes and comments are supposed to be kept in chronological order in an AfD, per WP:AFDM. However, I wouldn't have messed with a message thread, and had you had a double-bullet, indicating your comment was a corollary to your vote, I wouldn't have moved it. — Mike • 17:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you for your apology. You should be aware that WP:SK is a guideline. Editors choose to apply it or not, but there is nothing binding in a guideline. WP:CSD is policy. It is not a guideline and should not be equated with speedy keep. They are very different beasts. I have repeatedly indicated why I voted speedy keep- my thinking here is not at all unusual, and does not have to be explicitly included in the guideline page. Otherwise, I do not think it is proper for you to move comments on the page, whether double bulleted, single bulleted, or no bulleted. This is a discussion - one that you started - not an art project. Frankly, I think you need to focus less on style guidelines and more on the crux of the matter - namely that there is no consensus to delete this article. That was the case two weeks ago and is still the case today. Despite self serving comments like "I just want to gauge community opinion", the fact is that repeated renoms waste everyone's time. --JJay 00:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
            • To respond to your comment:
              1. A guideline is "something that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus" (WP:RULES). My sense of it has always been that it is semi-policy: it can be countermanded, but only with good reason.
              2. My citation of WP:SK was basically to denote that your "speedy keep" vote is exactly equivalent to a "keep" vote; the "speedy" adjective prepending your vote had no supporting weight to it in the WP:SK guideline. I believe the only policy reference to "speedy keep" is in a section of WP:DEL where it refers to "if a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached." That instance would be an end result a closing admin would come to when closing a matter early, not a result an individual editor could vote for.
              3. With regards to whether or not it is proper to move comments to improve readability, that was already decided on Wikipedia a very long time ago by community consensus — yes, it is perfectly acceptable to refactor a discussion to make it more readable.
              4. With regards to your comments about it not being an "art project," your belief that I've made "self serving comments," and your belief that this nomination "waste[s] everyone's time," I would appreciate it if you would remain courteous and not attack me personally. — Mike • 03:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Mike, given your clear propensity for wiki lawyering, it would have at least been intellectually honest to cite the second line of WP:Rules, namely: Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. There was eminent common sense in my speedy keep, designed to prevent the writing of hundreds of lines of text in a sterile debate ten days after the close of a previous discussion on the same topic. Therefore, I would ask that you stop trying to impugn the validity of opinions on the opposite side of the aisle. Regarding your remark on refactoring, moving an obvious response to a comment to a completely different part of the discussion does not help "readability". It lessens readability. It creates confusion. You should desist from moving comments on this page and not edit war when your moves are reverted. I'm also not sure why you continue to harp on civ, npa, etc, etc. Challenging the validity of someone's vote, and then displacing an explanatory comment, is likely to provoke a reaction. It is not personal, despite your continued assertions to the contrary. --JJay 13:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
                • To respond to your comment:
                  1. Wikilawyering (WP:WL) is defined as "[u]sing legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy" or "[a]sserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express." You've not cited principles I've attempted to override with technical interpretations. If you are calling me a wikilawyer simply because I am familiar with Wikipedia policy and am responding with it when disagreeing with you, I don't believe that qualifies.
                  2. With your regard to my quotation of WP:RULES, I paraphrased the second sentence you cited by immediately saying thereafter "it can be countermanded, but with good reason." That was my sense of the phrase based on the term "occasional exception" (emphasis added). Therefore, I don't think you can validly call me intellectually dishonest.
                  3. With regard to moving the comment, I moved a comment which replied to my message to an indented spot underneath my message. This is how it is done in Wikipedia nearly universally. It is not only permitted by the guidelines, it is a common action performed by numerous Wikipedia editors every single day.
                  4. I am not attempting to impugn the validity of opinions on the opposite side of the aisle. Please do not use straw man arguments when disagreeing with me.
                  5. Despite your citations of "eminent common sense," I again do not see any justification for calling your remark a "speedy" keep. I was not arguing that prepending the adjective "speedy" made your vote worthless (again, a straw man argument), only that it was of no practical difference from a normal "keep" vote.
                  6. Finally, I am "harping" on one of the core pillars of Wikipedia (pillar #4 of WP:5P, also see policy trifecta) because you appear not to be respecting it, once again with your phrase "clear propensity for wiki lawyering," as well as with the implication that I was intellectually dishonest, and the poor characterization of my actions. And even were we to assume that I had done a wrong to you, a point I do not concede nor agree with, being wronged is not considered acceptable grounds here for being rude or personally attacking someone. — Mike • 14:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
                  • Sorry, but you moved my response to your comment to a completely different part of the discussion, while leaving your comment in its original place. Here is your diff to refresh your memory [2]. By so doing, you created enormous confusion. You destroyed the readability of the exchange. You forced me to review numerous diffs to try to figure out what happened to my comment. You forced me to restore my comment to its original place in the discussion. You also added a comment implying that I was trying to vote twice. This was a significant waste of my time, and attack on my character, but then you went further by edit warring over the change. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the tenor of many of your responses here, such as the one above, demonstrate a continued focus on wiki lawyering. --JJay 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
                    • To reply to your comment:
                      1. Either a comment is made separately, in which case it is then moved to chronological order within a discussion, or it is a comment made in reply to a statement, in which case it is indented properly to show that it is a reply. I moved your comment to chronological order; when you made clear it was underneath my comment as a reply, I indented it for you to denote that it was a reply. This sort of formatting is longstanding and frequently enacted in AfD by numerous editors every day, and is widely considered acceptable.
                      2. I believe your following comments that employ heavy hyperbole — "enormous confusion," "destroyed readability," "significant waste," and so on — really do not have any meat in them to which I can respond. They are very much your opinion, as counter to normal deletion practices as that may be.
                      3. I find it odd that it took you "many diffs" to locate your text quickly given that most browsers have within them the ability to look for text within a webpage — it is something I frequently do when my own comments have been refactored or are not where I expected them.
                      4. It appears to me that simply responding to you while citing policy to support one's response is enough for you to label it as "wikilawyering." If that is not the case, I would appreciate what guidelines you use to differentiate wikilawyering from the simple action of citing supportive Wikipedia policy in a policy discussion.
                      5. With regard to your comments about the tenor of my arguments, I cannot say that I have been impressed by the manner in which you have decided to present yourself during this disagreement, either. — Mike • 14:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
                      • If you think a perceived missing bullet authorizes you to move comments on the page, start edit wars, and waste my time, more power to you. You are clearly someone who relishes argument and looks for every shred of a line in a policy, guideline, or essay- linked and selectively quoted over and over - to try to support their point of view. You also continually make accusations of incivility whenever anyone disagreees with you. None of this is not my approach. Good luck in the future. --JJay 14:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
                        • I think WP:AFDM allows anyone to move comments on the page in certain ways in order to improve the readability of comments and their responses. I think whether an edit war was started is a subjective comment on your part. I think only you have a metric as to how your time is wasted. The remainder of your comments were personal attacks, and thus not able to be responded to. Best wishes, as well, to you. — Mike (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Do you still think it is completely unverified? --maru (talk) contribs 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Inasmuch as you've made efforts to add some references, no, it's not completely unverified. The largest bulk of the article seems to remain unreferenced, however. — Mike • 16:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I have to disagree there. I've cited sections 2-6, and the introduction (obviously ext. links and references don't themselves need to be cited), leaving only section 1, the classical seven lightsaber forms (which I'm about to start on). The portion of the article which is uncited is in the minority, both in terms of number of sections and in word-count. --maru (talk) contribs 16:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Cripes. Three attempts at deletion? This is getting to be a bit much. --maru (talk) contribs 00:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the problem is that it keeps getting kept because it is "interesting and informative", despite the fact that it does not meet Wikipedia policies. Wookieepedia is the place for this kind of stuff. Wikipedia is not. WP:NOR requires that an article prove itself not to be original research. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says that WP:NOR is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by a consensus. BigDT 00:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh man, Really REALLY detailed article with really REALLY few actual references. Original research fancruft run amok, more like. Delete. A bad article is a bad article. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The important distinction being lost by some non-fanatics seriously considering this is that as far as I can tell this is original research that uses valid sources to research a subject not previously researched. Yes it is good original research that uses some citations and is not ment to be misleading or distorting and does an excellent job of piecing together bits of knowledge from various sources to reach its conclusions. If someone could write a thesis on this subject I think one's thesis advisor would commend the originality and quality of the research.--Nick Y. 01:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unreferenced original research. Since when do a wiki and posts of a bulletin board count as reliable sources? Dr Zak 01:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per many as WP:OR. But consider WP:SNOW — it's not going to happen. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Lots of this stuff can be sourced and some of it is. Is some of it original research (that it, a novel interpertation or unable to be supported)? yes. Is it so bad that is should be deleted? I think it needs to have a chainsaw taken to it and a lot of work, but it is not unsalvagable. Maybe it is just the eventualist in me. On the other hand, if I wanted information on this Wikipedia is not where I would look and it is probably better suited elsewhere. It is disconcerning how some of the above have attempted to argue about the previous nominations and opininions and persons therein instead of the article. I don't see this as having a snoball's chance in hell of actually reaching consensus, as long as Gay Nigger Association of America is still around, except by attrition. Kotepho 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Re: Consensus Vs. Verifiability/Original Research But really, there shouldn't even need to be a consensus. The closing admin should be going by the Deletion Guide for Administrators, which says: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies ... " Whether people flood this with keep votes or not, it should be zapped either way. — Mike • 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's ignore my on-going edits sourcing the article. I certainly hope the closing admin will actually look at the article, and see how it is sourced better than the majority of articles, and will realize how baseless the grounds for deletion. --maru (talk) contribs 03:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • One other comment ... ya know what part of the problem is? (setting aside the WP:NOR for a moment, which it looks like maru is making an effort to clean up) We have plenty of articles about things from fictional universes. That's fine. But this one is ... overboard. An article discussing lightsaber's usage in the movies would be one thing ... but this one is describing terms that never appear in the movies and techniques that never appear in the movies. It would be like if someone started writing articles on all of the stuff in the The Star Trek Star Fleet Technical Manual and other related books. If the term never appears in an episode/movie, then I just have a hard time seeing it as having interest outside of the Star Wars world. I love Star Wars. I have the movies. I saw the prequels on the day they came out. I'm not some anti-sci-fi guy desparate to delete anything and everything sci fi. Lightsabre combat is fine for a topic ... but maybe the article could be restructured so that it just discusses actual scenes from the movies. Just one random thought ... BigDT 04:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - atricle appears to have plenty of source citations now (based on published sources, no less), thanks to Marudubshinki. Given the nominator's concerns for "Wikipedia verifiability standards", I think those concerns should now finally be appeased, as the so-called "original research" has now been shown to be based on citable sources. MikeWazowski 04:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above TruthCrusader 06:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The epitome of non-notable juvenile cruft. Take it to Wookieepedia, please, in the name of all that is holy stop contaminating a grown-up encyclopedia with such childish claptrap. -- GWO
    • Comment - can we please act like adults here? There's absolutely no call to resort to name-calling and denigration of topics that you personally have no interest in just to influence a vote. That kind of behavior is childish. MikeWazowski 13:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't call anybody a name. I described the article as "childish claptrap". I make no judgement about the people who wrote that article. But the article is juvenile claptrap. -- GWO
        • Gareth: I've made some effort to track down citations to point out that these lightsaber combat forms are not merely cruft but actually relevant to interpretation of the movies; could you address that please? --maru (talk) contribs 15:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Yes. Sure. You're reading way too much in to what is fun, kiddies entertainment. Star Wars is not a philosophy, a way of life, its a series of childrens movies. They're fun. They're not documents to be intertextually analysed based on the writings of people with way too much free time. There can be nothing interesting to be said about the movies based on these post-hoc inventions and rationalisations of its over-excitable fans. The Star Wars "canon" doesn't even rise to the level of Tolkien's writings on Middle Earth; Tolkien, at least, had a motive for invention beyond profit, and the intelligence to weave interesting themes into his mythos. Lucasfilm is a machine for churning out vaguely-coherent product for gullible fanboys. Feel free to write as much about these meritless, fan-driven "interpretations" at Wookieepedia, and leave wikipedia for things that have an existence and importance beyond bored college kids in internet chatrooms. -- GWO
            • I think I'm going to concur with Mike here about your childishness. I specifically find citations to suggestion that the movies could be "intertextually analyzed" w/r/t lightsaber combat (the quotes were from Nick Gillard- y'know, the guy wot was in charge of the combat in the movies) and you choose instead to simply insult my work as meritless and crappy, and while you are at it, the entire Star Wars mythos as well. --maru (talk) contribs 16:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
              • I think I'm going to concur with Mike here about your childishness.
                • Since you believe the juvenile minutiae of Star Wars trivia to be an important subject for an online encyclopedia, I don't actually hold your opinion in terribly high esteem. Nick Gillard, the man who invented Lightsaber Combat thinks Lightsaber Combat is important? Wow. I'm amazed. Did you know, the man who drives the 67 bus thinks the route of the 67 bus is important. But he's not the most impartial source now, is he? -- GWO
                  • Comment - again, PLEASE, Gareth, lay off your inflammatory statements like calling this subject "juvenile" - it's obvious that many people disagree with you, and you're not helping the situation by continually trying to cast aspersions on the subject matter. WE KNOW you don't like it - quit insulting it, because it sure as heck isn't helping your argument. MikeWazowski 14:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
                    • Juvenile: 2. Belonging to, characteristic of, suited to, or intended for youth. Sorry folks, but thats what Star Wars is. It's intended for youth (can anyone aware of Jar Jar Binks suggest otherwise.) Therefore, it's juvenile. That's not necessarily a bad thing (unless you're writing an encyclopedia). -- GWO
                      • Star Wars is not juvenile; it's intended for audiences of all ages. Most novels and comics are quite adult. Furthermore, things intended for children are not any less worthy of inclusion, if they achieve sufficient popularity and cultural impact. -LtNOWIS 02:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Although, by my nomination, I reveal myself to be of a similar mindset to GWO with regards to the presence of the more outlying and far-reaching fan articles on Wikipedia, I don't feel such inflammatory rhetoric when casting votes does anything but inflame, not resolve, the debate. Wikipedia's pretty much in many ways grinding to a halt because of widespread disregard of the need to disagree in a civil fashion. — Mike •16:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Nick Y; having sources is not the same thing as having WP:RS, and citing web pages and making selective quotations from novels is not what WP:V is about, which leaves the conclusion that this is WP:OR. As well as being a fine example of WP:NOT in its original research incarnation, this is an extreme over-analysis of a minor part of the Star Wars films and an example of the systemic bias towards creating and keeping unencyclopedic content on Wikipedia. As WCityMike noted above, "Interesting" is not grounds for inclusion (nor is its absence grounds for deletion). Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Keep per Maru's explanations below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Which of the sources are not "Reputable"? The web pages are in general either official in and of themselves, or are copies of official material; and I have absolutely no idea why you are objecting to the quotations from novels, legitimate published canon sources. The article is not original research; all of it is/can be sourced (and indeed, in a number of cases I had to tweak text to shy away from plagiarism, which is as unoriginal research as you get). As it is not OR, your NOT contention is irrelevant, and I believe I've established that this subject is neither OR as everyone keeps chanting and also not an "over-analysis" (see my discussion with Gareth Owen and the sources in the article); assertions that the used websites and novels are somehow not references for this article (but references for other articles) smack of a double standard to me. Incidentally, being "an example of the systemic bias" on Wikipedia is not a deletion criteria. --maru (talk) contribs 22:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
A reliable source would be a book, or article, on the subject. Now, if the article is based on "Fightsaber: Jedi Lightsaber Combat" and the like, and if Star Wars Insider is considered a reliable source on Star Wars, all would be well. Is it ? If not, it looks original research. Another WP:NOR problem is the vast list of neologisms (shiim, jung ma, so chung). Where did those come from ? And, yes, you're right. Being an example of Wikipedia's systemic bias in favour of cruft is not a reason to delete. In fact, it's usually a reason to keep, as fanboys and fangirls nearly always turn up at AFD to vote en bloc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
To address your first point, Insider and the rest are generally C-canon, so they are reliable SW sources, no worries on that score. As for the neologisms- I didn't make it very prominent, but "Basic of lightsaber combat" and all sub-sections thereof are based on the two sources listed right under the "Basic of lightsaber combat" header. --maru (talk) contribs 00:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no idea why Mike (et el) is so insistant on wiping it off the face of Wikipedia so quickly. I thought it was an interesting and informative article. My feeling is that it's probably just as substantiable as many of the other Star Wars fan pages on wikipedia. At the least the questionable stuff could be "identified" as such, and the article edited. I have no idea why this short sighted zeal to delete it. Anyways who's to say someone won't just recreate it again? oblivionboy 10:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Oblivionboy, your argument isn't very helpful- the primary reason proffered for deleting this article is that it is unreferenced and made up by its editors; simply saying that it could be "substaniable" does not blunt their argument. The important thing is whether the article is substaniated right now. --maru (talk) contribs 22:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Response With regard to your questions regard "so quickly" and "short-sighted zeal," I refer you to immediatism versus eventualism. You appear to be an eventualist; I'm more of an immediatist. With regards to it being interesting and informative, those aren't guidelines by which Wikipedia decides whether articles are kept. There are plenty of informative and interesting topics that simply aren't encyclopedic. With regards to whether or not, if this was deleted, someone would then recreate it, such a recreation would then be speedily deleted under the guideline of {{db-repost}}. — Mike • 23:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
What Mike said. Any hypothetical recreation without the blessings of DRV or a really good reason for why the new version was impervious to the OR and unsourced-ness which supposedly plagues the current one would be quickly and in the main deleted. --maru (talk) contribs 00:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wookieepedia and merge any relevant information into another article. Great information, but this is a battle that can easily each compromise by a transwiki and a compress/merge combo. — Deckiller 03:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Strong Keep. I see no original research in this article, except for a few of the types of combat; these can easily be cited on another date. They need to be cited though; otherwise, people will not know if they are fan-created or not. And that compromises OR, but not in the sense of the majority of the article. — Deckiller 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, third nomination in 90 days with two previous keeps and vast improvements in the article in that time. Someone's being childish, but I'm not sure it's the authors. -- nae'blis (talk) 03:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I earlier objected to how quickly this current AFD came about, and I was rebutted by Mike with the example of Lost: The Journey. That was an anecdote, an extreme example which no argument was made for why it was the ideal way OR issues should be resolved. Frankly, to properly source this article, if it was legitimate, would be a monumental task. It is long and filled with detail, seemingly cobbled together (by me, at least) with numerous sources, adding those sources is not something I would do in my spare time. Yet, with this AFD, editors are being forced to do so. This AFD is a virtual revolver pointed at the article with a threat saying "edit this or this dies". People who value this information and could add the appropriate sources are forced to edit this page to an acceptable point. I don't agree with forcing editors to work and make edits. It's unfair and against the spirit of cooperation, with editors forcing the hand of their peers.

    Now, going into the article history, at the time this AFD was listed there were two line-items within External links referencing "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones The Visual Dictionary" and "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith The Visual Dictionary". I believe this (improperly formatted) sourcing is enough to establish that "Lightsaber combat" is an actual concept that has been structured, explored and documented by people at Lucasfilm. The keep votes from previous AFD established its notability. Both points should save the article from deletion. In my view, the proper thing to do here is to wipe the page clean save for the few sentences that are so general they could be verified, tell the talk page or Wikiproject Star Wars what you've done, and asked they go through the page history and copy and paste the sections of the article that could be verified, along with the right source. It takes more work than a simple AFD, but it's the procedure outline in WP:V and WP:DEL. Instead, the AFD route was opted, a route that failed twice already. If those sources were contested as false, then that is a completely different matter that to me would merit a third AFD. But it wasn't, and it smelled like an attempt for consensus by attrition (per Kotepho).

    Over the last two days or so, if you check the page there is a growing number of bracketed numbers in superscript, I believe they qualify as proper sourcing. Maru, thank you for your work, I think you went above and beyond what editors are meant to do on this encyclopedia. I was suspecting this AFD had more to do with the tastes of editors (witness the instances of "fancruft" in this AFD, irrelevant because again its notability was established by older AFDs) than actual WP:NOR issues. I know WP:V sets a high bar which can translate to a "guilty until proven innocent" requirement. Still, I'm unsettled about raising the bar higher to the point where proper formatting, a matter as trivial as grammer and spelling, is required. hateless 05:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Response An encyclopedia article on Wikipedia should be appropriately referenced. That is not a choice, that is a mandate, and it is one that has existed from the beginning of the project. Articles on Wikipedia that are not appropriately referenced do not belong on Wikipedia. That is, again, a mandate that has existed from the beginning of the project. Whether or not you believe articles that do not currently fulfill Wikipedia requirements should be allowed to stay in the mainspace indefinitely while they grow is a difference of wikiphilosophy: eventualism versus immediatism. It is a debate that has no more chance of being resolved than those between deletionists and inclusionists. Any Wikipedia editor, however, is required to be civil to their fellow editor and to assume that that person means well; I would therefore suggest that using such melodramatic hyperbole as "virtual revolvers" isn't useful. Moreover, it's not accurate: content is not killed when it is deleted. Even if already deleted, any administrator is happy to retrieve and then userfy an article (move an article, with its edit history intact, to someone's userspace) so that it can be worked on in a non-"live" atmosphere.

      Your argument then goes on to suggest that I nominated this article on the basis of lightsaber combat not being a Lucasfilm concept (even were we to assume that the existence of 'visual dictionaries' amongst the vast array of Star Wars merchandise was somehow indicative of the concept of formally denoted styles of lightsaber combat being officially endorsed), or it not being a notable concept, or even nominating it due to spelling and grammar issues. I did not nominate this article based on same. I sent it to deletion review because I believed the closing administrator in the second nomination allowed sheer numbers to blind him to a bevy of extremely poor arguments (such as the infamous "Jedi Academy clan" remark). I renominated it for deletion because people made absolutely no effort to improve the article in the three weeks since it was originally up for deletion by Milkandwookies. And, to make it clear, like others here, I agree that extensive quotations from novels whose canonicity has not been well-established is insufficient to rescue this article from the venue of original research. Obviously, others here will disagree with me, but if the closing administrator reads these particular words, I would respectfully ask them to look at the quality of the references, not just merely the fact that the article in question has now been referenced.

      Furthermore, lightsaber combat is neither a source of interest or expertise to me, so I would not enjoy rewriting this article, nor would I be of help rewriting this article, nor is such a rewrite required of me. If you feel policy requires same of me, I would appreciate specific cites. I enjoy the original Star Wars trilogy and do not agree with GWO with regards to his commentary about those who do, but I simply do not believe that the subject of this article is able to be saved in a way that its content would be supported by Wikipedia's policies as to what it should and should not contain. My action to nominate it a second time for deletion was thus, in my eyes, an entirely appropriate way to handle the article in question.

      With regards to a "guilty until proven innocent" requirement for articles, perhaps more accurately described as "considered unverified until actually verified" requirement, yes, that is required by Wikipedia's policy: "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain."

      Finally, with regards to your comments how you believe the matter "smells" and it dealing with the "tastes of editors," I think one of the most disillusioning aspects of the debates I have engaged in with regards to articles I've nominated for deletion is the large number of people who chose to disagree rudely and in a personal way. Very few people had the sheer class, such as Nick Cook did, to keep the matter a civil exchange on policy and reasoning, with a final resolution to agree to disagree. Instead, the vastest majority of people have chosen to accuse those supporting deletion of massive malicious intent, conspiracy, and a host of other silliness. It makes people such as Mr. Cook stand out as class acts, and it illuminates the very sorry state of affairs upon Wikipedians' attitudes towards Wikipedia's requirements that its participating editors be courteous to each other and assume that the person holding an opposing belief to yours means well, even if they disagree with you. — Mike • 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I feel I should add that I enjoy the Star Wars films too. They're extremely entertaining (well, the original ones, anyway). But there's a difference between enjoying something and considering every last facet of its spin-off industry as encyclopedic. We wouldn't accept a speculative essay on the mating habits of R.O.U.S. from The Princess Bride, or possible scientific mechanisms that might allow a flying Ford Anglia? -- GWO
  • Keep Someone just referenced the crap out of this article. I feel the arguements of WP:NOR are successfully discounted. A lot of them are from some magazine, but said magazine seems to be sponsored/endorsed as official. Don't care for the rapid renomination after a DRV either. Keep unless for some reason all the refs magically turn out bogus. Kevin_b_er 05:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. My sincere commiserations to the admin who tries to sort this out. --Dweller 09:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ha ha, I agree for the admins. :) However I would just like to point out to Mike (et. el) that there are alot of other pages with far less documentation for the starwars universe. Example: Yuuzhan_Vong. For this article I count now over 35 just for this page, which seems exceptional for me even for normal wikipedia articles. Surely this meets the requirements of even such a dedicated editor as yourself. Also I feel that trying to polarize the issue into bioptional points prevents a possible larger view of the issue. My question would not be option A vs option B (eventualism versus immediatism), but rather what are all the options. Instead of delete-ism, what are the other options, what would it take to bring this article up to standard? After all, even if you got it deleted, someone would be able to come back and just recreate it again, even if under a different title. Hardly a win-win situation for all of us. Anyways the article looks fine now, so again I say keep. --oblivionboy 16:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If I had it my way, there would be half as many Star Wars articles, but since I'm probably never going to see this happen due to the sheer amount of red tape, I don't really mind if this article doesn't stay or not now. And I will admit, this article is much more well-written and even more encyclopedic than, say, a character on a minor droid like 8t88. But we do have to start somewhere...I'm torn between how to side! — Deckiller 17:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Obviously, keep this article (it can always be deleted later y'know) and slap a merge request on 8t88. --maru (talk) contribs 00:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • (Reluctant) Keep I voted delete last time but given the short turn around and improved refernecing have to say keep for now. Eluchil404 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, the article is mostly original research. It is also named for an *imaginary* action. As far as I'm aware, there has never been any actual lightsaber combat. No soldier has ever gone into battle wielding a lightsaber. Lightsaber stunt work... yes... lightsaber combat... no. After committing this basic error, the article then evolved by, in large part, being written as if fighting with lightsabers is a real subject and Jedi Knights are real. I'm waiting for the next article, "X-Wing piloting", to come along and further degrade any credibility Wikipedia has as an encyclopedia written by people with both feet in the real world. This article needs to be deleted and then restarted as a more correctly named encyclopedia article about the stunt work for the lightsaber fights in Star Wars... who worked on them, and so on. - Motor (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment There are lots of articles on WP about fictional subjects that don't degrade its credibility. - Wickning1 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, that wasn't my point. Re-read my comment. - Motor (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I think that it IS the point. This article is not about filmmaking (the art and the science), rather its objective is to add information to a fictional universe that people might be interested in. I think its completely releveant from that perspective, and the delete call originated from whether or not the article "was just made up" or had actual referenes in order to substantiate itself. Not if it was "imaginary" or not. A subtle difference for some people perhaps. Naturally you are more than welcome to start a page on the stunt work in the starwars movies if you're interested. I'd certainly like to read it too. :) However the larger question of if wikipedia should only contain articles on "real" things, or "fictional" things (Hemmingway's characters are fictional yet are articled in Wikipedia), is perhaps a debate out of scope for this discussion - oblivionboy (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The issue is not whether Wikipedia should contain articles on fictional subjects... it is whether those articles should be named and written as if they are real subjects. This article commits both of those major crimes against an encyclopedia. If Star Wars fans cannot separate fact and fiction enough to write a suitable article, then it should be deleted... no matter how much work has gone into it, and no matter how many fans show up to shout "keep". As much as you might like it to be, this is not a Star Wars fan site, it is an encylopedia. Wookiepedia exists to allow Star Wars fan to play these sorts of imagination games. - Motor (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If you're that concerned about blurring the fact/fiction line, throw a disclaimer into the overview. No need to delete it to solve such an issue. - Wickning1 21:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, I'll have to assume you are joking there... the alternative is almost too horrible to contemplate. - Motor (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment FWIW, I'm not particularly a Star Wars fan, but I do lean inclusionist. - Wickning1 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You're kidding, right? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. The article states in the very first line "Lightsaber combat is the fictional style of lightsaber fighting used by Jedi and Sith in the Star Wars franchise." Fictional, and Star Wars. It is categorized as a Fictional martial art. What more do you want to ensure people don't inadvertently think this is real - besides the whole solid light thing. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, So what? Just sticking "fictional" in the introduction does not solve it. Read the rest of the article, and look at the name of it. If you added a disclaimer at the top saying that "this article has been written by people who have difficulty telling real from imaginary", it still wouldn't work because disclaimers shouldn't really be necessary in an encyclopedia. The article is fundamentally inappropriate (hopeless would be another way to describe it), by its name and by the style in which it was written. It should be deleted and restarted as an encyclopedia article that is both named and written from a real world perspective. The only reason it's survived this long is fan voting. - Motor (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, Do you hav any idea how many thousands of articles would need to be deleted under that logic? There are many hundreds in each of the Star Wars, Star Trek, and Tolkien universes that exhibit these same tendencies (just to name the fandoms that I follow). While I am sympathetic to the need to maintain the focus on the "real world", there is clear community consensus for inclusion of these articles. Eluchil404 12:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Wikipedia's Deletion Guide for Administrators says: "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether any article violates such policies ... " — Mike • 14:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, from someone who wouldn't consider himself a fan: this is interesting, far more notable than all the Pokémon, now well-cited, and the amount of jeopardy and animosity toward this article (three VfDs, especially in this short span?) is something I frankly don't understand at all. Nightwatch/respond 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. This is far more notable than a number of other fictional topics covered on Wikipedia, and it's no longer primarily OR. I can also think of a number of reasons non-Star Wars fans would be interested in this; Gillard's work developing lightsaber combat for the SW prequels is pretty important to anyone researching, say, modern stage combat, or fight choreography in American films. Penelope D 04:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Pretty interesting, but frivolous in my opinion. It goes into more information than necessary, but it serves as much purpose as other fictional documentation here. 71.129.80.249 05:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tevildo et al Percy Snoodle 15:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, and stop wasting our time with renominations until you are finally happy with the outcome. You got your answer the first time. Kim Bruning 22:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow. Startlingly rude response, Kim. Wikipedia's policy allows as many nominations as needed, and the reasons used for this nomination were not only acceptable but perfectly justified. I would accept, if not agree with, rationed discourse on the issue. Comments like "stop wasting our time" don't have a place in a discussion attempting to measure community consensus. — Mike • 23:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm just being short and to the point, not intentionally incivil per-se. Apologies if it seemed that way. What I'd like to know is what is the point of re-nominating in rapid succession like this? You could see volunteer time as a kind of donation to us. We should treat it with respect, and use it as efficiently as possible. Kim Bruning 00:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
        • No hard feelings -- and that's a nice way to think about editors' time, and I'll have to keep that perspective in mind in future interactions. But my reason for renominating it was that people had obviously had time to work on the article since the article's second nomination — but evidently the community chose not to work on it in a way that would bring it up to community standards. It was that that led me to believe a third nomination this shortly after the second would be appropriate. — Mike • 00:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very well cited. 34 internal citations is more than some featured articles. -LtNOWIS 01:30, 2 July 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.