Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormtrooper effect (2nd 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 was Keep. There was sentiment to rename, but no real consensus of what to rename it. Carlossuarez46 19:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stormtrooper effect

Stormtrooper effect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

It's another made-up "effect" and another Star Wars-related concept that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The article is all original research. None of the sources contain the phrase "Stormtrooper effect." It doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but rather on a site like Everything2, Urban Dictionary, Uncyclopedia, a different wiki, or WP:BJAODN. It's already on Wookieepedia and that's where it should stay. --Pixelface 21:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Claims of OR are false, Wookieepedia should have no bearing on whether an article belongs here or not, and your "other" comment makes no sense seeing as Chewbacca defense was near-unanimously kept. This seems to me like a retaliatory AfD because you didn't get your own way in the other one. —Xezbeth 21:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment If information is not verifiable and doesn't cite reliable sources, the information can be assumed to be original research. I mentioned Wookieepedia because if this article is deleted, the information will still be available on another website (with different policies). Just because someone puts "effect" after another word, that doesn't make it a topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article could *maybe* be renamed "the principle of evil marksmanship" because Roger Ebert is cited three times, but that's still just a joke — material suitable for Uncyclopedia. I understand many Wikipedia editors like Star Wars, but articles should not be kept merely because people like them or think they're funny -- articles need to follow Wikipedia policy. --Pixelface 22:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that this article has very little to do with Star Wars, if you actually read the thing. It is a cliché that spans multiple forms of media, Star Wars is just a notable example of this. If this page does require a rename then that can happen completely independent of AfD. —Xezbeth 22:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 21:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• It's certainly something commonly referred to in popular culture, although I've never heard it called that before. Weak keep or perhaps merge to Imperial stormtrooper, although that article is rather hefty already. the wub "?!" 21:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep there's sources attesting to at least the effect but not in name by Roger Ebert, not us. At the most, redirect it to the title that Ebert gave or merge it with Imperial stormtrooper. Will ^(talk) 21:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to Imperial stormtrooper per Will/Sceptre. Doesn't seem to be a very notable term yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merging an unrelated topic into a huge article really isn't helpful. —Xezbeth 21:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and "Rename", especially since there's been enough confusion by some who think this is a spinoff from "Imperial Stormtrooper". Merging is even worse than "Delete", since that's not what the article is about. It should be called "The Principle of Evil Marksmanship" since Ebert noticed it. And it sure as hell didn't start with Star Wars... every spring, I would watch Toto flee from poorly thrown spears, and wonder why the Wicked Witch didn't hire some talented people. Stormtrooper effect. What an idiotic name. Mandsford 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I'd say keep if notability could be more clearly demonstrated - Haven't had time to check yet for tertiary sources, but Ebert alone does not suffice, if he coined the neologism or the synonym thereof that's discussed in the article. Relies excessively on primary sources. MrZaius^talk 21:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Into character shield, since one is derivative of the other.--_ZXCVBNM 23:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep there is sufficient reference to make it clear that this is not OR, and it is certainly a notable feature of such films. I'd rename it after Ebert, Principle of Evil Marksmanship. DGG (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Wl219 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep references dont have to use the phrase to be included. We have references to "War in Iraq" and "Iraqi insurgency" all grouped in the same article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename "Principle of Evil Marksmanship" per Ebert's original formulation. There is no available reference for calling it the "Stormtrooper effect". –SESmith 04:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, an established sci-fi term. JIP | Talk 09:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per above. Faithlessthewonderboy 11:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per DGG. Stoic atarian 23:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename. Nomination's main argument seems to be that it's WP:OR because the Ebert sources don't refer to it as the "Stormtrooper effect"; this can be resolved by renaming the article to "Principle of Evil Marksmanship" and rewriting for context. --McGeddon 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep although it would be better to reduce dependency on Star Wars. This cliche has been frequently employed in propaganda movies about WW2 (not in all and not in that absurd way). Example: Four Tank Men And A Dog, a Polish TV series. Pavel Vozenilek 14:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep -- as by many of the above. The effect is notable across genres, and often associated with the Stormtroopers(thus justifying the name), and has been noted by published sources long before Wikipedia even existed (ref. Ebert's line about the "Imperial Stormtrooper Markmanship School"). SAMAS 13:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename (or rather not rename as the current name appears to be (Ebert's) Principle of Evil Marksmanship). Perhaps the "(Ebert's)" could be dropped. // Liftarn
• Weak Keep and rename The topic seems silly, but I think it's an important enough movie staple to merit inclusion. Needs some clean up. Ddevlin 18:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with rewrites if necessary. Definitely worth an article.SEF23a 07:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as is. The article can be improved in some areas but no strong reason for deletion has been presented. Burntsauce 17:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've opened a section on the article's talk page for discussion on a possible new name, since there appears to be a large amount of support for a move. æ² ✆ 2007‑08‑09t21:09z
• Keep This article belongs where it is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.87.87.19 (talk • contribs) 06:13 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename, as the principle extends clearly beyond star wars. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:09, 10 August 2007 (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.