Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to 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 delete.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

List of cultural references to Star Wars

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Yet another "in pop culture" article. There really is no point to this article. It is simply an article filled with trivial references of "that time that that show mentioned the name Skywalker!") How is this information useful? Some may argue that it paints a picture of how broad the cultural impact of Star Wars has been. However, on an encyclopedia, we're not here to paint a picture. We're here to state the facts in the most elegant, yet efficient way possible. Since it's information is trivial, and essentially trivia. It violates WP:TRIVIA, WP:AVTRIV (what with being essentially a trivia section in disguise as an article). This not to mention WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:ATT and probably more policy pages that it violates. The Filmaker 20:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my own nom. The Filmaker 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Mostly fancruft trivia, and not really encyclopædic. Adrian   M. H.  20:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definitely trivial and unencyclopedic. While it's nice to know that Star Wars is so mainstream, we don't need an anal-retentive-complete list to tell us that. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 20:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Argh, it mentions the Christmas special - somebody call George Lucas! ;) On a more serious note, yes, it's an indiscriminate collection of trivia. Some parts are pretty amusing and good for a chuckle and some are so utterly trivial, it boggles the mind. It's not technically listcruft but it's an indiscriminate collection of information. It's always a shame to see somebody's work go down the drain but it just isn't appropriate for WP. -- Seed 2.0 21:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear to those passing by ^^^^ that is a Delete. :) The Filmaker 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain. A lot of time and effort went into this article, but it's not encyclopedic and trivial and I hope the guy who made it put the information on his blog or something so it's not lost to the world.  Useight 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually, I would have advised the creator or a major contributor to save and move the article to a more appropriate wiki by now but most non-maintenance contributions are from IPs and we don't even know if that/those anonymous editor(s) will ever see the message (bug #9213, dynamic IPs) and userfying is out of the question anyway. Well, I guess there's always DRV. -- Seed 2.0 19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 15:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is the type of content that we should let wikis like Wookieepedia take care of. Far too trivial for Wikipedia in my opinion. Pax:Vobiscum 15:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a good article for reference, and certainly not as trivial as many other WP pages. What do you lose by keeping it? Yoda921 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Yoda
 * KeepAs reason stated above. User:AKR619


 * A better question would be, what is gained by keeping it? How is this information useful? At what point would I need to reference this article? If these questions cannot be answered with anything beyond "It's kinda fun" or "It's interesting" than the information is trivial. The Filmaker 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you have no interest in Star Wars, but some of us do. It's certainly handy to find all the Pop-culture references to this saga on one page - imagine how much time and effort it would take to find all this information ourselves!! It's certainly a handy reference. And there are many articles on Wikipedia which you would never reference. All of them. Exactly how many of your Uni lecturers (or whatever) will accept WP as a reliable source? And even if they did, what about all the pages for Pokemon, Digimon, Star Trek etc? Doesn't all of those come under the banner of "kind of fun" or "interesting?" Why don't you petition to delete all of them?

Do you want this information, which would have taken several hours to accumulate, to be "lost to the world?" What right do you have to instantly destroy something which took a long time to build without the consent of the builder?

Yoda921 15:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Yoda
 * Actually I am responsible for 5 of the 6 Star Wars film articles becoming featured articles, one of which will be featured on the main page on the 25th and I am currently working on Return of the Jedi. I am a fan of the series and the universe. However, an encyclopedia is a gathering of information that is reasonably important. How do we differentiate what is important and what is not? By what information would actually be useful. You have stated again that this information is good for reference. Reference for what? At what point would this information be needed to understand or enhance the understanding of a subject? At least articles on characters from the universes that you stated above can be used for reference to understand certain elements that may have been missed or are unable to find. They can be used for more than just "kind of fun" or "interesting". Finally, the amount of time spent on an article is not a factor here. It's a shame, yes, that so many people (mostly new or unregisterd users) feel the need to add information to this subject. However that does not make it any less trivial. And why would we need consent from the builder? Do we need consent from the original builder if we were to demolish a condemned building? No, because it's condemned and it may have been condemned because of the actions of the builder. The Filmaker 17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete A fan of Star Wars, I am. But useless trivia and fancruft, this article is. Deleted as such, it should be. -- Cyrus      Andiron   15:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a glorified trivia listing. This is a place for article, not random bits and occurrences. Biggspowd 21:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I see "cultural references" and "pop culture references" in almost every article I see on Wikipedia, and Star Wars is one of the most-mentioned references. It makes sense that it would have its own article.--Gloriamarie 17:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, to begin with, I highly doubt that "almost every article" on Wikipedia has a "pop culture/cultural references" section or branch article. Yes, a high-number do. But if you can name one featured article that is a "in pop culture" or contains a "in pop culture" section, I would refut my statement. These sections and articles are being deleted left and right. They hold very little to no useful information. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS has never been a suitable argument. The Filmaker 17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm with the nominator on this one. Elrith 00:27, 23 May 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.