Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Jedi Purge (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Great Jedi Purge
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is just a massive repetition of the plot of Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, which is featured and does need any of this, and this fictional event has established no notability outside of the movie. As such, it just repeats the plot of the movie in an in-universe way, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It has also been three years since its last AFD, and there is still no assertion of any notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Time for a great Jedi purge of our own? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If you read the article you see it has an extensive section on the Star Wars Expanded Universe that is outside of the Episode III story line. Does the article need work?  Yes.  Does it need to be deleted, NO. LessThanClippers (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it need to assert notability? Yes. Has it? No. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that cause for clean-up? Yes. Is AfD clean-up? No. Masterzora (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason for cleanup, because if there is no notability, there nothing to "cleanup", as the article is unable to improve in a significent way, so the path is toward deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Assertion of notability != notability. If your problem is that you believe it's non-notable, don't state that the problem is a lack of assertion of notability. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep And add notability template and possibly a refimprove template. Reliable sources can be found and added at any time for the expanded universe section. Rray (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would this article be kept? It is just a massive expansion on a small part of the movie article, which covers this extremely well in a very brief way. And if there are references, please demonstrate some, as this has been here for a while without any, and to tag in and wait when there is no reason to believe any are about to show up would be pointless. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See my previous comments. This isn't just the MOVIE.  It relates to the expanded universe, and the deaths/purge that occured in the books, etc.  That is a notable difference, the addition of many Jedi not otherwise mentioned in the movie.  To people interested in teh Stare Wars Universe, the larger Jedi Purge is certainly notable.LessThanClippers (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that the extended universe aspect is notable at all, we need references to demonstrate it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not disagreeing with you on the need for citation. I am only disagreeing with you on its notability.LessThanClippers (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the responsability of those who would keep the article to justify, at least with one, hopefully multiple sources in order to satisfy notability. You could even promise that you have information establishing its notability, and if you needed time to get it, it would be given to you. But just saying "it's notable" in this case isn't enough. Find a few references and I will withdraw the AFD, but if you can't, you should agree with me that it isn't notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * References can be added anytime. Wikipedia isn't on a deadline. Rray (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you cant establish it has any by the time this AFD is over, it should be deleted as there is no evidence it is notable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Time will tell. The consensus was keep for the last AfD, so it might swing that way this time too. Rray (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * But why? There has been no improvement, there are no references, it's just a massive inflation of one incident from the movie, and the Featured article on the film already covers it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeating that it's just an incident from one movie over and over again won't make that suddenly true. It's also covered relevant to multiple expanded universe topics. Rray (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, I agree that the article needs some major work, but it is important outside of the Episode III.  Think about episodes IV-VI.  If Palpatine had never issued the order to wipe out the Jedi, hundreds more Jedi could have fought the Sith, the Rebellion would have gained more support, and their ranks would have swelled dramatically.  Luke wouldn't be the sole Jedi fighting both Sith lords (Obi-Wan and Yoda didn't do much in terms of actual fighting), and he would've received better training.  They would have also exposed Palpatine to the Senate, and many delegates would not have blindly supported his push to create an Empire.  Now think about the Expanded Universe.  Once again, Luke would've had more support, and he wouldn't have needed to completely rebuild the Jedi Order.  Because he did have to rebuild, many of the policies of the Old Republic Jedi were changed; marriage, for example.  Also, Jacen wouldn't have watched Anakin slaughter the Jedi, including the younglings, and that might have influenced his decision to become Darth Caedus.  There are more ramifications of the Great Purge that prove its notability, but frankly, I'm running out of room, and I would like to find some references if I can.   Grey Maiden   talk  02:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, this does not establish notability through reliable sourcing, and does not justify a huge article on a 2 minute segment in the 6th Star Wars movie. And as the Expanded Universe information also has made no assertion of notability, why would we include it? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The same deletion argument does not necessarily apply to all articles on the subject. Some of the ones nominated in this group are trivial enough to be merged, or contain excessive detail for an general encyclopedia, and I've !voted merge or delete for them, as individually appropriate after carefully examining the article. The careless practice of indiscriminate nominations wastes the time of us all--the important articles should stay, and the merging of the others does not require AfD. DGG (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * and this is a perfect example of an article that should be deleted, as this information is already covered in a featured article in one to two sentences, so why would we massively balloon that plot section of the film article when it was featured in its trimmed and well written current form? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, while the event itself only lasted four minutes onscreen, the effects of the Purge spread throughout the galaxy and had major impacts on the galaxy for the next sixty or so years. The events leading up to, and the reprecussios of, Order 66 are far too important to summarize in "one or two sentences," as you called it.   Grey Maiden   talk  23:38, 16 January 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.