Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightsaber combat (4th nomination)

Delete - crufty, synthesized nonsese, hyper-reliance on a single source with extensively padded endnotes. This article if chock full o' cruft and synthesis. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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, except that everyone seems to agree cleanup is needed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lightsaber_combat

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails notability standards; poorly and improperly sourced. Jtrainor 19:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. Well, if not delete, then massively, massively cut of all the fancruft and original research. I'm having big trouble believing this to be adequately sourced: wikis are not reliable sources, and fanfiction hardly helps establish notability on the level of any sort of encyclopedic importance. A fan magazine, one fanbook and multiple fan websites hardly count as reliable sources, and certainly not the type of reliable souces that establish real-world notability. The article contains large amounts of original research, classic examples being: "'The Jedi or Sith employ an attack in rare instances to use the cutting power of their lightsabers for an object at an unreachable location called the saber throw, or a throwing of his or her lightsaber. The lightsaber is thrown; usually the blade tip spins in a circular motion about the hilt; and the saber hits its target, usually to cut it. Skilled practitioners will use the Force to manipulate the trajectory of the lightsaber and then redirect it back to their hand.'" Love that. Not sourced at all. Incidentally, also horribly POV: "Trained in all forms by Dooku, a master of his own 4 arm style and advantage to almost invincibility; however, incapable of using the Force, one of his only weaknesses" - alright, so I don't care, but someone who did might find that large chunks of the article violate WP:NPOV.
 * Virtually no real-world notability is asserted at all as to why we should care about this form of fictional combat. As it stands, the article reads like a how-to guide - not permitted - and a purely indiscriminate collection of non-real-world information. Since we cannot keep...stuff...like this in a reputable encyclopedia for even one second, delete. Moreschi Request a recording? 19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete for reasons already stated. Unmaintainable, OR article topic. --Ryan Delaney talk 19:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment On using Wikis as sources:  from what I could read from my admittedly quick read-through, the external Wiki is listed as an external link, not a reference.  Most of the references used in the article are from published sources.  I'll leave it to individual editors to determine if the Star Wars Insider is a notable source or not, but it certainly isn't simply fanfic.  That said, the article should probably be edited to conform to WP:NPOV. -- GJD 20:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional note See also the previous AfDs for this article, below.  I expect there will be much repetition from both sides:
 * First AfD.
 * Second AfD (new name).
 * Third AfD. -- GJD 20:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How is this listed as a second nomination if there were three others before it?  68.3.63.18 04:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as above, violates WP:OR and is little but a heap of supposition and personal opinion. RGTraynor 20:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Much of the article is sourced through statements from the novels, "making of" documentaries, and published magazines. Yes, the fancruft and OR needs to be removed. Yes, more sources, such as the various roleplaying books (from where some of this information is derived) need to be cited. Yes, "real world" information needs to be added and expanded on - I recall one of the SW "Making Of" films describing how lightsaber combat 'evolved' from the slow double-handed movements of Ep IV to the rapid speed of later films. But these are issues for continual editing and cleanup - not wiping the slate. -- saberwyn 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Burn it!, or just Delete. The article is a good read, but goes far more into depth than should be on Wikipedia. Nothing indicates that these are notable. Indeed, even in most of the EU books I've read they're barely discussed and they aren't mentioned in the movies at all. Take it over to Wookiepedia, if it doesn't already possess a copy. Cheers, Lankybugger 21:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. OR and fancruft aside, this has virtually no bearing on any canon outside the RPG. The vast majority of SW canon (including all movies and videogames and almost all novels) offer no explanation of lightsaber training or feats of the Force because it's like magic, and magic is self-explanatory. It is only for the intricacies of pen and paper role-playing that applying rules to saber fighting and the Force becomes necessary, and therefore the significance of this information to the Star Wars phenomenon as a whole is strictly limited. GarrettTalk 22:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete due to massive OR, and failure to meet WP:ATT. However, I would be inclined to change my vote if the cruft was cut down, and better sources added.  --Haemo 00:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. unencyclopedic fancruft `'mikka 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't dare attempt to read that giant mess of an article, but from what I see, it appears to be based largely on fanfiction. As far as I know, none of this fighting technique stuff is even mentioned in any of the movies.  It actually looks like some nonsense Supershadow (Star Wars geeks will know who that is) made up.  I would say, if it could be massively trimmed down, there could be something there worth keeping, but I don't know. Wavy G 02:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This article is an institution. It needs citations added but thats about it. Also, continually renominating a page for deletion every 6 months is petty and a waste of everyone's time - its already been decided on 3 occasions to keep it, so perhaps you should just accept this. GordonRoss 03:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Surprised that now even deletionist is going after Star wars. What's next? some random star trek ships, even enterprise? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 08:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment: One can always hope, along with the articles based on every single variant model of battlesuit that ever got ten seconds of screen time on any ep of Mobile Suit Gundam, individual Pokemon articles and the like.  RGTraynor 14:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as per GordonRossJmpJckFlsh1968 18:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a huge amount wrong here. Yes, it's a little lacking in citations, but it does still have 35 citations, most of which are to reliable sources.  Yes, there's heavy reliance placed on a single source -- Star Wars Insider #62 -- but I don't think that's a huge issue.  Needs a bit of cleanup work, but that's all. JulesH 19:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment' Links to other wikis and to fansites and message board are not valid sources. Jtrainor 20:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Seems to me that you are confusing "External Links" with "References".  While the "External Links" are indeed pointing to various wikis and message boards, and while SOME of the references are pointing to those, there are significant references to published works in the Reference section.  While some may consider the Star Wars Insider to be a fan-based publication, the plain fact is that the article concerning lightsaber forms has been used and referenced now by computer games, role-playing games, and novels in the Star Wars genre, a number of which are in the "References" section of this article.  Declaring the entire article as "original research" and void of valid sources is a fallacy at this point.  Otherwise, you might as well ditch the articles on The Force (Star Wars) and Jedi and just about everything from WikiProject_Star_Wars, because most of the content of those articles came from similar sources.  Like it or not, those sources are being used by authors writing for Star Wars games and Star Wars novels.  This article needs cleaning, and perhaps some rewriting-because some of the article IS questionable-but not deletion. -- GJD 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up Making my stance official, as above. -- GJD 20:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, or at least remove the OR Stating the forms are based on Kendo/Iado is pure opinion. Jilsao 04:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment stating the forms are based on Kendo is pulled right out of the reliable sources that the article is based upon, and is also the "real world context" that makes this artice encyclopaedic. JulesH 08:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What reliable sources? I sure don't see any in this article. Jtrainor 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The reliable sources in the article are:
 * Star Wars: Attack of the Clones The Visual Dictionary (ISBN 0-7894-8588-5)
 * Star Wars Insider, #62
 * Episode I Video: Prime of the Jedi -(part of the "Making Episode I" series).
 * Some of the others may or may not be, as I haven't evaluated them, but all three of these sources are reliable. JulesH 22:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If they are sourced they need to be sited. The way they are stated reads like the article authors opinion.  "This style is likely based on iaido."  An encyclopidea isn't interested in what's "likely".  If that is from a source it should read "according to source x, this style is based on iaido.  Further, the kendo thing was just an example, state things as fact, and site them, it may all be fine for all I know, but it's not as it sits. Jilsao 22:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR. Fails notability. Macktheknifeau 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Appears to have quite a bit of source citation to me, and it's an important element of one of the biggest pop culture phenomons in the world. Redxiv 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment How so? Lightsaber styles are mentioned in none of the movies and in almost none of the novels. Jtrainor 01:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It is prevalent in the Star Wars Expanded Universe.-- T    o    m   04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huge cleanup This is definitely an important article, with some good information. Keep it, but clean it up.-- T    o    m   04:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Editors have already decided to keep it at least once, someone else here said three times. Like it or not, the lightsaber combat from Star Wars is becoming a part of popular culture, and this is by far the best article I have been able to find on it in the web. Yes, it needs cleanup, yes, it needs more source citations, but it is very relevant to the StarWars WikiProject. If we delete this, we may as well delete almost everything related to Star Wars that isn't an article on a book or movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clegs (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Strong keep Keep in mind that *all* published Star Wars stuff is canon per Lucasfilms... they have some odd tiered system. Lucas himself > films > books/tv shows > games > magazines > comics (or similar order), where all is canon, but anything contradictory higher in the chain supercedes anything else--so hence, no continuity breaks, and all valid in that sense to include in Wikipedia as "not something made up". Star Wars Insider is an OK source, it's official. Only needs some sourcing, but can be sourced to game books, RPGs, mags, starwars.com, video games, etc. We use those sources of that nature for all sorts of stuff so it's fine here. Just needs some clean up/tightening, and why keep going after it to delete? WP:NOT a paper dictionary, so this is a content matter, not a policy violation as demonstrated by past AfDs. Please close as Keep, and just tag for clean up--the sources exist, are known to exist, and exist in abundance. It's the single biggest most popular fictional franchise... ever. Keep. - Denny 19:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment George Lucas's opinions on what is canon and what is not is irrelevant to policy, as is how popular Star Wars is. The article is a massive pile of unsourced OR crap about a non-noteable subset of Star Wars. Jtrainor 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to get hostile or bellegierent, and try to AGF on my statement. I said it's all sourceable, and isn't material made up by people (and yes I know what OR means). It comes from the games (numerous books and video games, fine as sources), the comic books (fine as sources), the novels (40+), etc. It's a content matter, not a policy vio of an article. please argue based on policy with examples. - Denny 08:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Who's getting hostile? You completely sidestepped all the problems with the article with vague proclamations about sources, while still not addressing the notability argument. This article pretty clearly fails the noteability guidelines. Jtrainor 06:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Jtrainor 05:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Declaring something to be non-notable doesn't make it so... Lightsaber combat is a central feature of six of the most popular films of all times. It is central to DOZENS of novels, which also do touch on the forms and so forth mentioned here, and I saw last night that Lucasfilms is actually coming out specifically with a book about the Force in their fictional world this year now, which will additionally cover all this material. I'm not sure I understand your claim of it not being notable. have you watched any star wars film, or read any of the novels? This is all sourceable--I'm simply saying that the article expanded without people actually adding footnotes as often as needed, and more people are saying the exact same thing basically. Whether it's fictional or silly is illerevant. A film series of six movies alone where each film makes roughly $1,000,000,000> from release through to DVD, about a family whose people basically do "Lightsaber combat" makes "lightsaber combat" notable, before you even get into all the monster volumes of side material...
 * I challenge you politely to explain how it's not notable, as your non-notability push is perplexing and baffling... thanks... - Denny 13:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, notable. Everyking 09:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Care to explain exactly how this meets the standards under WP:Notability? Jtrainor 09:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Very comprehensive, 35 citations, nice images, Wow. Smee 09:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete flush it. --Fredrick day 12:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that further demonstration of notability, if you want to see just how often the 'forms' and what not are mentioned by names, go look at the links at the bottom of the article that go back to the star wars wikia site. If no one else beats me to it (going offline for a very long time now) I will work to implement those as sources--the specific novels each appears in. keep in mind that many of the forms, etc., are mentioned in multiple novels or play roles to some degree in many... so, further solid demonstrations of notability. - Denny 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As an additional aside...a more appropriate check for notability guidelines on this subject is WP:FICT. Somehow, I don't think anyone will argue that Star Wars is a work of fiction.  As to whether or not lightsaber combat is considered a major or minor concept within Star Wars...well, the vast majority of SW fiction certainly contains instances of lightsaber combat, particularly the prequel era works and the post-movie works.  Within the genre, I would say that it has distinctly established notability.  The OR argument has been debunked so many times in this AfD that I suspect people are simply not even trying to look at the references section of the article.  Ironically, I feel Moreschi has the best take on this-chunks of the article do need cleaned up, because Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide; the article on Karate doesn't go into detail on how to perform its art; neither should this article try to do the same.  Those segments of the article should be removed.  -- GJD 14:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Other wikis are not valid sources. Jtrainor 20:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strawman/red herring, I didn't say the wikis were RS. I said they had listings of all the RS, down to detailed breakdowns of which book featured which thing (fighting form, etc.) detailed in THIS article. The sources exist in abundance, and anything officially owned by Lucasfilms is a fine RS for the Star Wars articles. The ONLY question is one of notability, but being as the lightsaber combat features heavily in six of the most successful films of all time, and a hit TV show (Clone Wars) plus other old (80s) animated shows, plus the forthcoming live-action Star Wars shows, plus 30-40+ novels... yeah, notable. But that is the ONLY question here. The rest is article clean up stuff. - Denny 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with regret. Clearly a lot of work went into this and it deserves to be preserved on a fansite somewhere, but it doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  To the vast majority of people, these fancruft details are not notable. — MediaMangler 14:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep. It has WP:CRUFT issues, and may need a couple of cleanup tags, but that's no reason to delete the article as such. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's still like this? Well, I repeat my comment from June of last year, in a previoous deletion nomination: "This is utterly terrifying in its degree of absorption in its subject, and I find myself hoping that somehow a compromise can be found in which I, when reading it, am reminded at least every few pages that the whole thing's fictional. Cruft-smanship doesnt even begin to cover this." Hornplease 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per cleanup points made above. —  Jeremy  Talk  05:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - absolutely is complete and total cruft according to WP:CRUFT. However, a heck of a lot of work has gone into this article, it is notable from the standpoint of the extended Star Wars universe, and it passes the Pokemon test. If this gets deleted, what other cruft needs to be deleted? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as fast as possible. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The noteability of this article is irrelevant with regards to Pokemon or other articles. Just because one thing is noteable, it does not neccesarily follow that something else is.


 * Keep AS has been stated previously, a very comprehensive overview of the subject. This should be on the front page. Cloveoil 02:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that much of the content of this article appears to be culled from inappropriate sources and hence this article has sigificant WP:OR problems. However, I also agree that enough sources and content would be left if the unreliable material were culled out to make topic notable and justifying a reasonable article. AfD covers whether the topic itself is encyclopedic, not whether the current article complies with standards in all respects. The topic supports an encyclopedic article, and that is enough. --Shirahadasha 05:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's already been mentioned that this article has issues with WP:CRUFT, WP:OR as well - although apparently that's debatable. Also, it really needs some sense of objectivity instituted into it's detail heavy subsections. But... it is a notable element of the Star Wars franchise, and there are a lot of tenacious people who've put a lot of work into the article to make it W-acceptable. So I vote keep. Black-Velvet  06:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, like MediaMangler, with regret. A lot of effort has clearly gone into this article and it's definitely sourced but it just simply isn't notable. It's pure Fancruft (and I say this as a big Sci-Fi fan). Wookieepedia is the place for it. Perhaps it should simply be cut and pasted there (they could use the content). Coricus 06:51, 16 March 2007 (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.