Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immaculate Conception (Star Wars)


 * 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 merge into the Anakin Skywalker article. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 20:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception (Star Wars)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is pure OR, with no real referencing to assert notability. A topic like this would need multiple reliable sources, and has asserted none, and has accumulated a mountain of tags that have all gone unaddressed, because there isn't anything to add. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not even sure it's research, just speculation by the original editor. I can find nothing online to back up the assertion that Qui-Gon Jinn believe the 'chosen one' would be a virgin birth (although I'm not prepared to subject myself to that film again to check this). Even with sources this should be merged with Anakin Skywalker. BlinkingBlimey (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Speculation, OR, no notability, fancruft, unreferenced. Do we really need this crap on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radman622 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

&mdash;LaMenta3 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anakin Skywalker (with option to keep as an article size subpage split if necessary). The topic does seem so minor, however, that it would likely be best tied to the background of the character to which it is related. Further, it provides some good real-world notability to the Anakin character. At first, I thought hell had frozen over and I agreed with Judgesurreal (no hard feelings, buddy), but the concept seemed such that there would be some scholarly work on it, so I did a Google search. To my surprise, I found a good few books that give varying amounts of treatment to the subject:
 * (pp 100-1)
 * (pp 121-3)
 * (pp 285-7)
 * (pp 178-88)
 * (c. p 53)


 * Merge per LaMenta3. Damn, she's good at finding sources. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per Lamenta3. Yeah, s/he is.  Malinaccier (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge per LaMenta3. I concur. Maxamegalon2000 06:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete entirely, and copy the links the editor above provided to the Anakin Skywalker takl page for some intrepid editor to skim through for appropriate material for that article. --EEMIV (talk) 11:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and add the material found by LaMenta--its sufficient for an article on the concept as well as adding to the article on the character. An excellent example that there is in fact real world context and real world sourcing for even apparently unlikely material. It should sevre as a caution. DGG (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Anakin's article. Immaculate conception really is a small, relatively unimportant aspect of the character, but if those references have good information, I say go ahead and devote a section to it on Anakin's page.  Grey Maiden   talk  01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. A thank-you for LaMenta3 for doing necessary and important work that the nominator refused to do. --Kiz o r  00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ...the article still has no cited references, so it is not yet established there are any references that can be used. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the burden of proof for substantiating the claims in an article are on the editor adding (or restoring them). To date, no editor on this article has done so. It is not the responsibility of someone nominating an article for deletion first to go poking around for material that other editors should have included in the first place. --EEMIV (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup. All that is required is that it be shown that reliable sources exist or have a strong potential to exist. Adding the sources to the article is a matter for general cleanup. And yes, it is the responsibility of the nominating editor at AfD to do a cursory web search (which is commonly accepted to include Google web, books, scholar and news) to establish whether there is a strong potential for the existence of reliable sources. This is not expected to take more than 5 or 10 minutes. If sources exist, then tag the article, perhaps leave some links on the talk page, or if you're feeling ambitious, add them yourself. If your cursory search turns up nothing, then go ahead and nominate. This should be common practice for ALL AfD nominations. LaMenta3 (talk) 04:25, 20 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.