Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great Jedi Purge (4th 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   no consensus. There is no consensus as to whether the sources found are significant enough. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

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

The article only covers things from an in-universe perspective; no real world notability is asserted. It contains no independent references, or, indeed, any references at all. The only external link is to a Star Wars wiki. It is a plot summary of something that happened in the Star Wars universe. This somehow has managed to survive three AfDs, the most recent of which was in 2009, on some very shaky arguments that appear to be able to be summed up as basically "Star Wars is notable, therefore everything in Star Wars is notable". Some of the keep arguments have said that it could be improved, but it's been tagged for having no sources and being written in-universe since August 2008, and for notability concerns since March 2009. Surely, if the article could be improved, four and a half to five years is ample time for that to have happened. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is documented in sources such as  Star Wars: A Movie Embedded In American Culture; Jedi vs. Sith: The Essential Guide to the Force; Star Wars and History. If the nominator wants the article improved he should go at it per sofixit.  AFDs are not the way because AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am unfamiliar with the first source listed here, but I want to point out that both "Jedi vs. Sith" and "Star Wars and History" are officially licensed LucasFilm products. Additionally "Jedi vs. Sith" is written entirely "in-universe", to the extent that its written from the perspective of a fictional Jedi Master.  This makes both of them rather clearly first-party sources, and thus not valid for establishing any sort of real world notability.76.91.27.159 (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Star Wars and History is written by two history professors and is published by John Wiley & Sons — a respectable academic publisher. Lucasfilm defend their trademarks quite aggressively and so the publisher probably just gave them an acknowledgement to avoid legal trouble.  None of this is any reason to disparage the source or others like it.  Instead we should notice that the nay-saying IP address has no significant editing history outside of this discussion and that this discussion contains at least one editor who have been banned for using sockpuppets. Warden (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - in addition to the sources mentioned above, there are passing references that compare the event to other similar events in literature and others again that suggest some significance should be attributed to the use of sixes in "Order 66". Beyond all of that, we're talking about a significant plot element that establishes the context for the original three Star Wars films and inspired the title for the final film - Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Stalwart 111  09:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - as significant as it might be as a plot element, the source s listed on the article fail to demonstrate any significant real-world importance. Per what Wikipedia is not, we shouldn't have these articles. Plot is adequately covered on the individual film articles. Simone 07:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what sources? There aren't any sources listed at all. Even if there were, we don't judge notability by the sources currently listed in an article - notability is about the sources available to be listed in an article. Is there a particular objection to the sources provided by Warden above that could be listed in the article? Stalwart 111  07:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wookiepedia is the only source listed. I object to the article not on the grounds that it is impossible to source the content using third party sources (although the sources listed by Warden are totally inadequate as they fail to meet the quality standards which reputable sources such as academically published material uphold), but based on the fact that the article will never be anything other than a rehash of plot details and hence is inherently inappropriate to an encyclopaedia. Simone 11:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, the external link - yeah, I don't think anyone ever intended for that to be considered a reference and the reference section is empty, but I understand what you mean now. I can accept that they are not the highest quality sources ever put forward but I also can't see that they fail WP:RS. I disagree that WP:NOTPLOT applies to a plot element central to multiple films, video games, books, comic books and other media and an article that brings those multiple mediums together. I just don't think this is what that policy is designed to prevent. The article also allows us to specifically avoid NOTPLOT in multiple other articles where that central plot element doesn't have to be rehashed all over again. But hey, I get where you're coming from. Stalwart 111  12:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * NOTPLOT applies to all articles unless it is possible to demonstrate real world importance. If this article had a reception section which included academics on popular culture/science-fiction discussing the role which this plot element plays in the Star Wars universe, then perhaps it wouldn't be in an issue, but as it is, the article is entirely in-universe and therefore falls foul of it. Simone 09:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. As a major plot element and, depending on how one sets up one's search parameters, it appears this element is covered in enough detail in independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Article and project will benefit from work on the article to add citations, but not through deletion. With respect to the nominator's concern "Surely, if the article could be improved, four and a half to five years is ample time for that to have happened", lack of effort by others does not necessarily mean it is unimprovable. See WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If the fictional event is only documented by primary sources, that's not meeting our notability guidelines, irregardless of how important it is to the fiction. If it is claimed to be that important, then there should be secondary sources that recognize this that can be used to show that importance. And given that we're talking about a modern work (the expanded Jedi universe) that has existed primarily since the birth of the Internet, I would expect sources to be easily identified online and thus the "5 years" call isn't justified, as you're not hunting for print sources. --M ASEM  (t) 02:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But if the topic is covered in multiple books, it does. Thank you.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. Although this isn't a guideline, it has some good advice.  We keep film plots to below 700 words for a reason.  This belongs on a fan wikia site, not here.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style/Writing about fiction is also pertinent. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Suggestion I am surprised there is nothing comparable (that I can find) to, say, Mythology of Lost, where the broader strokes of the historical aspect in-universe are described. Mind you, this would need secondary sources that talk about the overall SW universe in broad out-of-universe terms to set up the article and critiquing/analyzing the history at a broad level (particularly with the expanded universe). If that can be established, then these smaller elements, which appear to only be sourcable to primary works, can be briefly described and the like, along with keeping redirect targets for searchable terms. --M ASEM  (t) 17:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly a key event (and of personal interest to me!), but the two references mention it only in passing. Should be merged into another star wars page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete unless sources showing the real world significance of the event can be provided. TTN (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. There's a little bit a coverage, but can be covered in books and stuff, etc. JJ98 (Talk) 20:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - As mentioned by others before me, it is certainly a significant event within the fictional universe from which it originates, but there is, unfortunately, nothing to show any real world notability. The two sources found thus far are as about as trivial mentions as you can possibly get, and I'm not able to find anything more substantial.  Unless someone else has any luck finding any sources that actually contain non-trivial, real world notability, then this page should not be here.  76.91.27.159 (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC) — 76.91.27.159 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There are plenty of sources - try searching for "Jedi Purge" instead of "Great Jedi Purge" or any of the other alternate titles. I managed to find more references and was only looking for 5 minutes. I dumped them into the references section and will move them in-line later. Stalwart 111  01:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right off the bat, two of those added sources are invalid. As I mentioned above, "Star Wars and History" is an officially licensed product from Lucasfilm.  The same goes for "Star Wars: The Essential Chronology".  Which makes both of them first party sources, and thus not usable as a reliable source.  "Sword Fighting in the Star Wars Universe" has a single, one sentence mention of the Jedi Purge, in relation to the game "The Force Unleashed", which like the sources already talked about in the article, is about as trivial of a mention you can get.  The final source you added, "The Science Fiction Reboot", only talks about the purge (again, extremely briefly) as part of a plot summary.  There is nothing in the book that actually indicates any real world notability.  And again, all of these sources that are not just blatantly first party are extremely trivial mentions, and actually provides no information that could be used to source anything in this article that isn't flat out plot summary.76.91.27.159 (talk) 05:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the googlebooks entry for Star Wars and History looks to be incorrect. While some of the content was "written in close collaboration with George Lucas and Lucasfilm", the googlebooks entry suggests Lucasfilm was the author which is clearly not the case (just looking at the front cover). The authors, instead, were Reagin (a "professor of history and women's and gender studies at Pace University") and Leidl (an "associate professor of history at Laurentian University"). That they were provided with a licence to publish their book does not "invalidate" the source and the pair have published other similar books about other non-Lucasfilm franchises. There isn't anything to suggest the pair are not a reliable source. While not particularly substantial, Sword Fighting in the Star Wars Universe provides an insight into the adoption of this plot element into other (related) media, like video games. And like I said, that's what I managed to find with only a cursory WP:BEFORE-style google search (I've added another set of essays which also give the subject some coverage. That the article is written as a plot summary is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem. The article should reflect what is available and if that means a much shorter article, so be it. Stalwart 111  06:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue with "Star Wars and History" isn't, to me, the reliability of the authors, but the fact that it is a Lucasfilm publication. If you look at Amazon, for example, where they have a preview of the book, the copyright page clearly states that the book is Copywritten to Lucasfilm, which would indicate that it can not be counted as a third party source, which is required for a source to adequately provide notability.  But, it is, I admit, the closest thing to a reliable source that has been found.  Every other source that has been located (and yes, I have actually searched myself) is either A. extremely trivial or B. consists entirely of plot summary.  The latter, of course, while being useful in sourcing the plot summary portions of the article, do nothing to establish the real world notability that is required for an article like this to demonstrate.  And as for the former, I'm afraid that finding a dozen or more trivial mentions can never add up to equal one, required, in depth source.76.91.27.159 (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As Warden quite rightly points out above, Star Wars and History is not a "Lucasfilm publication" - it's published by John Wiley & Sons. Stalwart 111  07:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep If independent reliable sources cover it, then its notable. Two history professors get a book publish a book by a notable publisher, then that counts.  Hard to sort through all the other book search results, but it clearly gets coverage.  The sources found in the article seem sufficient.   D r e a m Focus  16:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete the topic fails to establish its notability in that there is no significant coverage from reliable and independent secondary sources, per WP:GNG. One-sentence and passing mentions don't count, per WP:GNG, and those found over the course of the discussion fall in the same category as they don't allow the article to go beyond a plot summary. Per WP:NOTPLOT, the emphasis of an article about fiction must be its reception and significance, not the plot summary which is to be "concise". The inescapable truth of Great Jedi Purge is that it is a massive plot dump frighteningly devoid of out-of-universe content, and the two or three scattered out-of-universe sentences just can't improve or save the article on their own. In order not to violate WP:NOTPLOT, plot summary would have to be trimmed down almost to nothing so as to seem "concise" next to the abysmally small amount of discussion on "reception and significance"...that would mean reducing the article down to 5 or 6 sentences. I think some contributors need to open their eyes on the fact that without significant secondary sources there is nothing to be fixed, and the discussion utterly failed to provide any (most of the sources provided in this edit don't have even trivial mentions of the purge), and that Wikipedia doesn't take "so be it" for an answer. One way or an other, "Great Jedi Purge" doesn't deserve a stand-alone article (there could be a merge to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith).Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's significant coverage in a couple of the sources I added and at least passing mentions in each of the others. I originally argued that this should be kept because it was a significant plot element - given the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I'd be inclined to think this passes WP:GNG anyway. Again, nobody is arguing against paring the article back. Stalwart 111  22:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've looked at all the sources indicated, didn't find anything. Could you point to a specific source and page ? To be clear, "significant coverage" does not mean plot summary from secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, "significant coverage" is defined by WP:SIGCOV, not by FdF. The book Stars Wars and History has such coverage on multiple pages and has entries for both the Jedi Purge and Order 66 in its index.  It draws historical parallels with the order of the Templars who were purged in the 14th century, and with the machinations of Hitler who purged his enemies in the 20th. Warden (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, WP:NOTPLOT is the overarching policy and WP:GNG shows its practical application. If sources don't allow to build enough coverage on "reception and significance" so as to make the plot summary "concise" by comparison, then the article fails WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG. If balancing plot summary with reception and significance only adds up to a few sentences-long article, per WP:WHYN, it's mergeable. Could you please point to a specific page number for Stars Wars and History?Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources found by Warden and Stalwart. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Only a deletionist deals in absolutes. CallawayRox (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Great article purge, i.e. delete - I don't see substantiation of WP:GNG. The recently-added references mostly mention this subject in passing, and even then summarizing the plot element, and fleeting coverage regurgitating the plot seems insufficient to establish notability. The wholesale murder of the Jedi is quite pogromish and Holocausty -- that there aren't any materials by actual scholars pointing that out (i.e. I didn't find any with a Google Scholar and G. Book search) suggests to me, however, that this subject hasn't actually received that kind of coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge-Keep its notable for the Clone Wars, Jedi and Sith articles. --173.51.29.188 (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources provided above. All the rest is useless fuss. Cavarrone 16:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the fact none of the sources provide enough significant coverage to meet WP:GNG ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, with the possible exception of "Star Wars and History", the sources provided are not sufficiently independent of the source to qualify for the WP:GNG in my opinion. This sort of content is better hosted on a fan wiki.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:05, 13 October 2013 (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.