Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of changes in Star Wars re-releases


 * 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. Paul Cyr 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

List of changes in Star Wars re-releases

 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Zargulon 08:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Compared to lots of other star wars-related material in the encyclopedia, this stuff is somewhat culturually significant and is interesting to quite a few star wars fans, including the not-too-crazed. It's also relatively non-WP:CRUFT-y in that it pulls a lot of related material together in a single article instead of spewing it to 20 separate articles.  Alternative would be to disperse it into the articles about the individual films but I like the idea of centralizing it like this. Phr (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wikipedia is also not a paper encyclopedia. The article is relatively neutral in tone, and is verfiable and referenced. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The argument this article is "relatively" not as a bad as others, is irrelevant to the nomination, as is the weak claim the article is "somewhat" culturally significant.  WP is not paper, but it is also not an indiscriminate collection of everything.   Tychocat 10:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm saying this list is not indiscriminate. It's info that I'd even hope to see in a paper encyclopedia that covered Star Wars in any depth.  Phr (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep While slightly crufty, considering the significance of Star Wars and the controversy that Lucas' tendency to reinvent his movies creates certainly makes this article worth keeping. Furthermore, as written, it's fairly close to being worth considering for Featured Article status. Caerwine Caerwhine  11:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. The Wookieepedian 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasoning of others above. Voice of Treason 12:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Regardless of the intrinsic quality of the article, I feel that Star Wars/Lucas Wikipedia articles should have significance beyond the Star Wars community, whereas this article is by definition and in practice entirely inward-looking. Zargulon 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment that Wikipedia articles should have significance beyond the Star Wars community, but that "community" is a tiny subset of "people have have seen the movies" or even "people who are fans of the movies". I think this article reaches well outside of the tiny subset that can reasonably be called the "Star Wars community".  I'm not even in the largest of those groups mentioned (I've seen some of the SW movies but not all, I don't own any SW videos or merchandise, and I'm not remotely a SW fan) but I liked the article. Phr (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't say this article is uninteresting. I think it would find a more natural audience (including your good self) in a blog or a movie almanac. I'm not sure that it is appropriate for Wikipedia, or, for that matter, a paper encyclopedia. Zargulon 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the stuff in the article is appropriate for Wikipedia, given the depth of SW-related coverage that WP editors have already deemed appropriate without serious controversy. I have some minor reservations about the article existing as a separate article, as opposed to splitting out its contents to the articles about the individual films.  But that's a matter of editorial discretion, and there's benefit to putting it all in one place like that. Phr (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per reasoning of others above. Gran2 16:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is from a nuetral point of view, and provides information to many star wars fans, there is no reason to delete it.
 * Keep per Phr and Caerwine. BryanG(talk) 16:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's NPOV, and a pretty good article. Worth keeping if only as a cruft dam. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 22:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into the respective movie articles; information on the various versions of the SW movies (which this really is) is good to have. --maru  (talk)  contribs 23:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a highly useful and informative article. Giving its position on Wikipedia, a casual fan could find out what he was looking for without having to probe all varieties of Star Wars fansites with less-than-reputable sources. 24.161.191.234 08:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting, well-written, and encyclopedic. I remember when the re-release came out in 1997, and the changes to the trilogy got a LOT of mainstream press, so this is not just something only hardcore fans care about. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Thorough and necessary for fans - I don't know of another source that has all this information in one place. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The changes in the Star Wars series are a key part of the production history of the franchise. It's nowhere near featured article status - it's just an uncited list without much compelling prose, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be deleted. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, What harm is there in keeping this article? I don't understand what the point would be of deleting it.  It's useful and informational.  People will complain about anything.  I came here to find this information and it was greatly useful and appreciated.  I was scratching my head in wonder as to why the article would be up for possible deletion.  Please keep this online.
 * Comment I agree, it's a shame how many people complain about good-faith deletion nominations. Hope your head is alright. Zargulon 16:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep If List of pre-made characters in The Sims isn't deleted, then this shouldn't be, a fortiori. AnonMoos 17:48, 26 July 2006 (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.