Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormtrooper effect

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. - Mailer Diablo 08:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stormtrooper effect

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Creating AFD discussion as my prod was disputed. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and that's what this article is. There are no verifiable references to cite. We certainly don't need an article about this. I think its mention in cannon fodder or Redshirt (stock character) is more than enough. Also, it should not be shorted to a simple definition either, wikipedia is not a dictionary. I know it's a cliche in use, but just because something is noteworthy doesn't mean it's appropriate for wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Notability for info on this. Also, one could argue that the stormtrooper effect is a neologism without verifiable sources and thus an innapropriate article. When and if there are good sources to make an article for this phenomenon I'd encourage it, but as it stands this article is not appropriate. See Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms for further info. Crypticgeek 03:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 04:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; amusing, but totally original research. Whoever wrote it should save a copy and post it somewhere else. Sdedeo (tips) 04:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder. EnsRedShirt 04:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. MikeWazowski 04:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder, per EnsRedShirt. (SEWilco 05:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC))
• Merge and redirect, per above. FrozenPurpleCube 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per above. T1g4h 09:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• You wikinazis have no sense of humor. Shame on you! This article is a fabulous insertion of intelligent comedy into your otherwise boring and sad worlds. Instead of seeking to maintain the beige tinge of Wikipedia overall, you should embrace professional style attempts to add a little pop to your supposedly "world embracing" online pedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.149.50 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - Yeah, what Wikipedia really needs is more hilarity. -- Plutortalkcontribs 15:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Not that we don't have a sense of humour, you're just not funny. ColourBurst 17:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Hence why I said to Merge it. I quite liked the article, but can see it fitting in with the cannon fodder article quite well ;) T1g4h 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC
  • Delete per WP:NEO and Godwin's Law --Roninbk _{t c #} 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a neologism that originated here. It seems a highly notable name for an easily verified cultural phenomenon; what is recent is the name. Google says it finds 18,000+ hits. This particular article seems to be well liked by several bloggers.[1][2] This may not be "policy" but it makes me think we should think twice before deleting this article. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: whatever the result, please try to keep the cannon fodder article on topic and not overfilled with trivia. Although things like Homer Simpson references may look more important today the article should be rather about the tens of millions who died in wave attacks. Pavel Vozenilek 18:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced. No reason to merge because it is unsourced. No reason to redirect unless someone can find a reliable source tying this the concept of cannon fodder.--Isotope23 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge: Yes, there is some good idealism here and I like the idea. It seems like an intelligent contribution, for the most part, and has some good info to it. Since there isn't a definite source, I think we should keep the best info and the redirect to a more definite article. (Unregistered user, submitted September 2006)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.21.207 (talk • contribs)
• Merge if you must, but don't delete The phenomenon is well-established and documented, it is only the name that is not. This is a fitting article that documents an archetypical cinematographical tool that has since expanded into video gaming. The tool should not be ignored simply for a lack of taxinomical pedigree. Find a way to keep it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mooseblw023 (talk • contribs) user's first edit
• Keep: It's a "good article" candidate, for heaven's sake; see the discussion page. I believe this properly documents an important meme. I also disagree in that it is original research; it cites the use of the stormtrooper effect in creating dramatic irony. I bet if a professional screenwriter cleaned it up a bit, it would regain "good article" in no time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sim (talk • contribs)
• Keep: Seems legitimate to me and describes an important, if humorous, aspect of film and video games. Could certainly use more sources though, this type of thing is well documented given the vast multitude of Star Wars fans. -- gxti 00:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nice violation of WP:NOR and a host of other things as well. Whispering^(talk/c) 01:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The phenomenon exists, and there's no other name for it. Cannon fodder is a different phenomenon altogether. Stormtroopers are bad at offense, whereas redshirts are bad at defense.

Kla'quot 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep.The two main accusations by those who dislike this article is i)it is original research, and ii) that it makes them laugh. Against accusation i this is patently untrue as the "Storm trooper school of marksmanship" has appeared in print form as far back as 1989 and against ii what's wrong with some humour now and again???? KTo288 11:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Per all above. There are a heck of a lot of google hits out there for it, it was a former good article candidate and from a cursory read this article is pretty well-written. True, it is not very well sourced, but sources can be added. Merging is not ideal because this really does desribe something distinct from cannon fodder, which I personally think needs a re-write more badly than this article does. Since sockpupetry seems to be a concern on this discussion, I would like to point out that this nomination was Crypticgeek's 7th edit. Irongargoyle 12:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the information present can be verified, if citations are needed then that should be correct, not deleting the article! It is equivalent to killing a person to cure their hiccups: surely a better solution is available. A ‘citation are needed tag’ and a general effort to find them is all the is required, not deletion. --BerserkerBen 17:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Merging to cannon fodder is a bad idea, as these are two different phenomenons. Needs sourcing, but it should be verifiable for the most part. BryanG^(talk) 04:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs clean-up and a few better sources, but it's something that's been talked about elsewhere. Confusing Manifestation 10:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: So we're supposed to keep badly written, unsourced material that consists only of orginal research instead of deleting it or merging it as appropriate? I'm a newbie to wikipedia relatively speaking, but I'd rather have good encyclopedic articles instead of bad ones languishing around waiting for someone to actually source and verify them. Crypticgeek 13:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep - WP is a work in progress, which is why anyone can edit and contribute. If we delete this now, and somebody does decide to cleanup & properly source everything, they'll have to start from scratch. Better to have an article tagged as unverified needing cleanup than to force an AfD every time somebody tries to codify a plot device in fiction that may no longer be a neologism. Wl219 20:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge any useful info and Redirect to cannon fodder. Palendrom 01:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's similar to cannon fodder, but not quite the same. dougmc 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment try to find some sources (for the term in wider use), if they can't be found then merge into various articles as per previous suggestions sheridan 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but trim heavily, and verify if possible. As is, it contains long crufty lists. --tjstrf 19:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but trim and otherwise clean-up. This is a notable and distinct literary concept fully worthy of coverage. This is true even though it's associated with sci fi fandom and hence annoys certain editors. --Saucepan 21:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this is clearly not original research. An article which has survived for well over a year, and the basic frame has been there for many months, should not be deleted lightly especially with so many contributors. Mallanox 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable nickname for common plot device in movies. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 08:09, 29 September 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.