Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Force lightning


 * 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 delete.  Discounting some poorly argued opinions, of which three were for "merge" and two for "delete" (Dorftrottel, lack of notability is not a criterium for speedy deletion), contributors have overwhelmingly determined that this thinly sourced detail of an (albeit very notable) fictional universe should not have an article of its own. They have also by a ratio of roughly two to one determined that the content should not even be merged. That's probably close enough to allow for a brief mention (to the effect of a few sentences or a paragraph) of this subject in an appropriate article. Sandstein (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Force lightning

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable plot gimmick/special effect. Single citation is to unreliable source. Original research ("a single powerful blast may be sufficient to kill a person instantly") and plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:FICT and WP:N. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 00:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete article, create redirect to Force (Star Wars). Star Cruft, Cruft Wars, Attack of the Cruft, take your pick. I know the chances that this article will actually be deleted are slim at best, considering the amount of Star Wars fans around these parts. This is a shame, as this article serves only to make Wikipedia look like an amateurish fanguide. Nothing is notable about this outside the Star Wars world. The absolute best we could hope for from this article would be List of appearances of Force lightning in popular culture, and that's a warning sign. Throw 'er on a Star Wars-themed Wiki, but far too in-universe for this particular Wiki, especially considering the more iconic Force-related quote also redirects to aforementioned article. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge Merge any useful information into Force (Star Wars), Darth Vader or their respective articles where they belong. This fails WP:FICT and WP:N. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that "delete and merge" is not legal under the GFDL, as attribution must be maintained. These should be interpreted as merge and redirect. Bryan Derksen (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak merge While it's true that the information would be primarily useful only o Star Wars fans, that isn't a valid deletion argument.  Such arguments are CRUFTCRUFT and IDONTKNOWIT.  A better concern with the article is that it doesn't have a lot of real-world relevance and can't really be written in an out-of-universe style.  As it stands now, Wookiepedia already has a much better article than ours about the subject, so they wouldn't benefit from a merge of this material.  Information should be merged into an article on the force in a section about the uses thereof if real-world relevance can't be found (and I can't see any in relevant sources).  Celarnor Talk to me  01:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: It would seem that Force power is the place for this. Celarnor Talk to me  01:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am disinclined to compound one atrocious, poorly-cited/-edited article's problems by merging another one into it. --EEMIV (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mmmm, crufty.  Badly written, poorly sourced, and never going to be more than that.  Merge anything reliable into Force power for now, deal with that cruft in the future. WLU (talk) 10:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to an article on force powers or some such. Various places for "real world" electrokinesis may exist as well. Doesn't need a standalone article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into other Star Wars characters Ijanderson977 (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Force power. WP:fancruft isn't a good reason for deletion, but lack of notability is and I can't find any secondary sources on this subject, only passing pop culture references. On the other hand, I think there are independant sources for Jedi powers in general (e.g. some of these links) with discussion such as the impact of those fictional concepts on modern culture so that article is redeemable, even if it's currently totally unsourced in terms of secondary references...which it is. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wookieepedia and delete, per WLU. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge depending on what gives the best results - this is something that we need to cover with the Force, which we must cover with Star Wars. --Kiz o r  23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Star Wars. Verifiable and reognizable topic that appears in notable films and video games. "Cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion per WP:ITSCRUFT, Cruftcruft, DGG, and Verdatum.  And the article has improved from the nominated version versus the current version.  Moreover, we cannot "delete and merge" per Merge and delete.  Finally, there is a clear interest in the topic among our readers and editors.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You haven't addressed that there is no evidence of the WP:notability of this subject. If it's not notable, why should it have its own article? The subject doesn't need to be described by a long page of information clearly from primary sources (mostly computer game manuals), all the reliable sources about "Force lightning" can be covered in a paragraph or two in a more general article on the Force. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have seen no indication that it is not notable. It appears in some of the most successful films of all times and also in video and other types of games and even if as you suggest it should be covered in an article on the Force, then we would still merge and redirect without deletion.  I see zero benefit to the project in outright deletion and as DGG notes below when an article has potential, we do not delete, we redirect with the allowance for the existing article to be improved when additional sources are added.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof does not fall on those asserting non-notability; the burden of proof is on those claiming notability -- and there is no evidence of "Force lightning"'s notability. This effect/gimmick does not inherit notability from the films or games in which it appears. Given the lack of sources and in-universe treatment, I see no utility in retaining this article, and simply merging it into Force powers would shift one pile of unsubstantiated dreck into another, simply exacerbating the project's problem with unsubstantiated in-universe plot summary and OR. --EEMIV (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Appearances in multiple media, even toys, and given the hits this article gets (thousands of readers and clear evidence of editors working on the artucle) suggest notability. As a sub or break off article, the effect/gimmick inherits notability from the films and games in which it appears and is covered by a mix of sources, both primary and secondary and just needs clean up, not deletion.  I see no gain for our project in not retaining this article.  As a community of editors, the burden is on ALL of us to do what we can to improve articles and not to just order others to do so, especially on a paperless encyclopedia without a deadline.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment One way that we can improve the encyclopedia is to avoid subjects that lend themselves primarily to unreferencable waffle. I've looked for independant sources on "force lightning" and failed to find them. Unless some can be found, it doesn't warrant an article to itself because the independantly referencable discussion of the subject is so small that it can easily fit within another article. I've never seen a guideline that suggests "sub articles" should be exempted from WP:N, I don't think that's the case. Note that the opinion of many here is to merge/redirect. Clearly actual deletion would be counterproductive, but that's just a technicality.Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Unless if we can say we have exhausted all publications, i.e. sci fi, toy, and Star Wars magazines, then I don't think we can say definitively that a non-hoax topic such as this one cannot be better referenced. If there is any consensus to merge and redirect then we do not need a deletion discussion to do those.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the absence of reliable sources and the non-encyclopedic tone of this article, I disagree that deletion is "clearly" "counterproductive." Unreferenced plot summary and trivia like this dilute the pool of actually well-done Battletartrekwars-related articles. --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So, you're suggesting that this special effect's incorporation as an action figure *accessory* suggests notability? "clear evidence of editors working on the artucle" is a vague and, like this article, unsubstantiated rationale to keep it. I have no idea -- and doubt you do, either -- how to back up this claim of "thousands of readers." All ~25 articles that link to this "article" use the term/idea in the context of plot summary, without any discussion or notion of real-world notability. And as for the idea that this thing should remain until all potential sources have been examined -- well, you simply have it backwards; sources should be on hand and incorporated into an article as it's developed. Editors who want to add/restore/retain material have the burden of meeting Wikipedia's WP:V and WP:N standards -- that clearly hasn't been the case in this thing's almost-three-year history. Perhaps you should userfy this article until citations to reliable sources establishing notability, verifying claims and providing an out-of-universe perspective come up. --EEMIV (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does indeed suggest notability as its something that is specifically mentioned as a major feature of that action figure. Deletion rationales for the article tend to be "I don't like it" in nature.  I can back up the claim of thousands of readers with the fact that I link to a page above that demonstrates in one month alone the page received thousands of hits.  Articles develop over time.  Wikipedia is in effect a constant work in progress.  Therefore, the article is still being developed and should remain in mainspace where any editor can come and continue to improve it.  There's no deadline.  Instead of userfying it, the article has a greater likelihood of improvement if it remains in mainspace.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not saying that no references could ever be found. But what are the odds of finding significant reliable coverage in an independant source? Slight to none, reflecting its lack of notability. WikiProject_Star_Wars says that "Only a few characters, items, or spaceships deserve their own entry" and that trivial information is "frowned upon". This article is not on a subject of primary importance to Star Wars, and can only ever contain trivia because force lightning has never been a subject of interest in its own right outside of fan sites. The deletion discussion here can establish a consensus on whether the subject warrants an article to itself, which can then be referred to when implementing the redirection.Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Considering the popularity of Star Wars, I think the odds are very good that given time and adequate searching on not just online, but published sources significant reliable sources could be found. It is a important force power and given that Star Wars just keeps making games and figures these sorts of aspects will only increase in notability and coverage.  Regards, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And, as usual, nothing speaks against recreating the article iff and only when reliable sources verifying notability have been found. Such sources should be included right on article creation. Please stop speculating; and please start acknowledging valid arguments. Dorftrottel (harass) 09:57, May 2, 2008
 * While my argument is to keep, I will acknowledge that there are valid arguments presented for merging and redirecting without deleting; however, there are no valid arguments for outright deletion. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 13:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 13:27, May 2, 2008
 * Not really. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 13:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please reply to this post. Dorftrottel (warn) 13:31, May 2, 2008


 * Speedy delete, fails all notability prerequisites. Dorftrottel (bait) 00:08, May 1, 2008
 * Weak delete possibly could be an article, but this does seem to consist of essentially OR. Could be recreated with some better sources if they are available. I prefer not to be cited as if my general opinions were WP policy. It's flattering, but not really truthful. DGG (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If an article has potential then we would be best off not outright deleting it, but in a worst case scenario would redirect it as others suggest, although I still personally believe that the article should be kept. Anyway, I am not citing you as if you were policy, but only as indicative of a specific respected user beyond the two shortcuts I provide that the whole "cruft" as an argument from editors really does not add anything to these discussions.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But is there potential here? WP:PLOT is fairly clear that plot information for its own sake is not wanted. Taemyr (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is indeed potential. If we use the various published sources, we should over time be able to better source and expand the article.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into Force (Star Wars) or Force power - not sufficiently notable for it's own article - but are we denying it's existence? Seems like it would be better placed padding out the main article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect without merging This article is purely plot synopsis. There is nothing here to merge since there is more than enough plot in the articles that it have been suggested for the merge. Taemyr (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) ammending my vote.  Redirects are after all cheap. Taemyr (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is not only plot synopsis. When there is a valid redirect location (although I still think the article should be kept) and the article in question is not a hoax, libel, or copy vio, we redirect, rather than delete.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get this idea that only hoaxes, libel and copyvios get deleted. Per policy, "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia, content not verifiable in a reliable source" is also up for deletion. This topic I believe falls under the former, and there is a dearth of the reliable sources for an appropriate out-of-universe perspective per the latter. --EEMIV (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has content verfiable in reliable sources and those should not be deleted. If I was able to find some references relatively rapidly, there's no reason to think that given more time, we couldn't find even more references.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Dooku used this in Attack of the clones and Palpatine used this in Empire strikes back is plot information. So is the fact that this is a power availiable in games set in the Star wars setting.  Do you have any content about the impact of the star wars power that takes place outside the setting?Taemyr (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The appearance in so many aspects of a notable franchise lends some degree of notability. We know aspects of Star Wars are covered in publications that do not necessarily show up on web searches.  Thus, I think it reasonable that over time we have a realistic potential to come across an article in some magazine that will indeed allow us to expand on the out of universe context.  Plus, considering that there's even a game called The Force Unleashed coming out, the notability of and information on force powers are likely to increase.  When that game is released, reviews will likely comment on the use of and creation of certain powers as they typically do.  I'm not opposed to a temporary merge and redirect without deletion that allows for the realistic possibility of what we currently have being improved as additional sources and material is found and can be added, but given that we have a redirect location and we know it's not a hoax and due to the widespread coverage of Star Wars on the net and in publications not readily found on the net, I just cannot see any benefit for outright deleting or deleting and redirecting.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability requires objective evidence. Plus wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  Our treshold for redirection is way lower than what it is for articles, so I can see no against turning this page into a redirect rather than deletion. Taemyr (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Appearances in notable games, toys, and films demonstrates objective notability. I am not opposed to redirects without deletion so long as there is no prejudice to unredirect when additional sources are found.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:NOT. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that it fails any of those. Please note WP:VAGUEWAVE.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This comment indicates that I have read your response to my !vote, but do not feel there is a reason to reply since conversations with you do not lead anywhere. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you do not understand how AfDs work as they are discussions, not votes. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the absence of a real-world treatment of this article and assertion of notability, the burden of proof for citing any sort of evidence is yours and fellow kepper-!voters. Also -- were you trying to be ironic with your brief "Note WP:VAGUEWAVE" comment? --EEMIV (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not a vote. The VAGUE shortcut indicates the weak argument of just listing a bunch of shortcuts without any reasoning.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No kidding, it's not a vote -- I'd have thought you'd picked up by now that the ! symbol (which means "not" in programming and logic contexts) in front of "vote" is AfD shorthand for "I know it's not a vote, but when it comes down to what I want, here's my say." --EEMIV (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did not know that. Thank you for explaining it as I was starting to wonder what the deal was with the symbol before the "vote" word.  We all learn something new every day, no?  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or weak trim&merge into Force power. Way to minor/nonnotable for its own article, the rest is focused on plot and OR. – sgeureka t•c 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think evidence suggests that we can expand the out of universe material and considering upcoming games like The Force Unleashed, the notability and significance of force powers is only increasing. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the page has been rather ruthlessly edited; it's still problematic, but this is what is left after the last round of trimming. Easily a section in force power, and in that page the sections are quite long, allowing a longer, less choppy rendering of the subject.  Including mentions like action figures, and every single place it appears in any medium, makes for a rather desperate sounding page.  I remain convinced that the page can be quite productively merged.  As a completely humorous aside, it really looked like palpatine's action figure was holding a handful of blue snot, tee hee.  WLU (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as per sgeureka. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the various arguments above. Not-notable, WP:NOT, etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs)
 * Delete. Not notable.  We already have an article on The Force (Star Wars).  KleenupKrew (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a reason to redirect to The Force (Star Wars), but not for outright deletion.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 15:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouille. Also note that this is | mentioned or discussed in many news stories. There should be enough material in those news stories to source the article. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that notability requires more than passing mention. So pointing us at a google search page is not helpfull.  For example the first seems to merely be giving a short description of the power as part of a game.  Also note that a wikipedia article should describe real world impact, so we need to be able to cover force lightening independently from an out of universe perspective.  Do you have any sources covering Force lightening outside of the star wars universe?Taemyr (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we generally require more than passing mention. That is, however to avoid OR. I disagree strongly with the notion that solely in-universe is a problem. We don't like in-universe descriptions when they are based off of the original material itself rather than secondary sources. That's because it makes OR likely. We can however use secondary sources which discuss the in-universe element. Furthermore, the games are a generalization of the original movie set and thus their description makes it less in-universe anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Specific parts of the game is still in-universe. In universe is in itself a problem because articles on fiction should be written with real world inpact in mind.  The relevant policy is WP:NOT, and this point is covered at WP:PLOT.  This is further explained in the relevant manual of style, Manual of Style (writing about fiction), which includes the argument against in-universe perspective for articles.  Taemyr (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N overrides PLOT and MOS. The reason we have those is because of N and RS. In general, if all we can talk about is plot then we will likely be engaging in original research which isn't ok. That's not an issue here since we have many sources that give descriptions and summaries. Applying common sense is good. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:N overrides MOS, they largely talk about different things. I know there is no consensus that the guideline WP:N overrides the policy WP:PLOT.Taemyr (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Force power per Celarnor. GlassCobra 03:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvement. I see good sources added and notability can be verified. This is encyclopedic information, not fancruft. Second choice would be to merge to Force power. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What do the Andy Mangels and Star Wars: The Power of Myth sources actually say about force lightning? In what way is the coverage not trivial (not just a listing or passing mention when discussing a character) and therefore evidence of notability? They seem to be the only sources currently that may demonstrate notability, so please describe how they do. Ryan Paddy (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - for anyone thinking of revisiting their !vote, the page indeed has much changed mainly through the deletion of original research. It is now a total of perhaps six sentences, and could easily be merged into force powers; my preferrd option.  WLU (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment Two references have also been added. If they demonstrate notability then it should have an article. Searching snippets on Google Books they just look like pasing mentions, which wouldn't demonstrate notability: here and here. There are only two passing mentions in the second source. In the first source there are three passing mentions, but there may be other sections in the book that have deeper coverage. Anyone have the book to confirm? I'm still of the merge and redirect opinion unless such notability is shown. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - "Keep per improvement" What a joke, there is a less than a paragraph remaining of the article, that alone should clue you in to the lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I assume my vote was addressed in your comment, thus I may clarify. By improvement, I meant the addition of three more sources and the cleanup of unnecessary details. It is true that the page was heavily trimmed, but AfDs judge the topic; the length of an article doesn't always matter (even when it does, that would be a cause for merge, not deletion :)). I believe the fact that sources were found in a relatively short time - a few days of this AfD clue us in about the subject's notability and the potential improvement in the future. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The sources appear to be exactly what I would expect: Star Wars paraphenalia with passing mentions of force lightning. If they only include passing mentions, they absolutely don't demonstrate notability. And if the publisher also does extended universe books, they're not independant either. What I doubt you'll find is independant and substantial coverage of force lightning in a reliable source. And that is the criteria for notability. Come up with a news article on the subject, or an academic paper, or a chapter in a book, or a magazine article, or whatever. Otherwise, no evidence of notability has been demonstrated. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Force power per above.  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, this is precisely why we have outlets such as Wookiepedia for this sort of stuff. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We also have outlets like Britannica for articles on Napoleon, for example, but just because something can exist elsewhere is no reason why it should not also exist on Wikipedia. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but this in chock-full of original research and in my opinion fails our notability standards for fictional topics as well. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2008 (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.