Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucas bashing (2nd 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 delete and recreate as redirect. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Lucas bashing
Delete. Just came across this page, have no bias for or against Lucas but this page describes original research on a non-notable topic and does not deserve more than a couple of lines in the fan criticism page. Zargulon 20:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete-- even the article title is unencyclopedic. Any relavant info can be merged to the Lucas, Star Wars, or other articles.  --Rehcsif 20:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete OR, looks like an attempt to create terms.--Crossmr 21:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment previous AfD. --Pboyd04 21:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My vote from the last AfD stands. "Delete and redirect to Fan criticism of George Lucas. I've heard the term but don't think it deserves an article of its own. --Pboyd04 04:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)" --Pboyd04 21:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess you mean merge to the fan criticism page rather than redirect. Thanks for contributing again. Zargulon 21:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment no I mean delete the content that is there since it is orignal reasearch and non-encyclopedic and redirect the topic to Fan criticism of George Lucas. There really isn't anything worth merging. --Pboyd04 21:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This would parallel how Bush Bashing was handled.  --Rehcsif 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, ok, got you.


 * Good Lord Delete NEOCRUFTOR. ~ trialsanderrors 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Meesa Say Delete Danny Lilithborne 23:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm always surprised by how much ire this page draws. Really, what is a "Good Lord Delete"? How on earth can a title be unencyclopedic? For a topic which is supposedly "not notable", it is noteworthy to me for being the page I'm forced to defend the most against attacks which don't reference problems with the content. Yes, as Pboyd04 linked, there has already been a Delete flagging of this article. Since then, the content hasn't really changed since then except to increase the number of inline references. Can I say again:
 * This article is not "original research". It plainly lists 17 references which define the term both implicitly and explicitly and certainly detail all of the attributes listed in the article. Most can be clicked on and read. Go ahead, try it.
 * Comment I just did an edit to integrate the references into the text. The number of references is down to 15 but given that most sentences now have a source attached, I think this argument is probably more true than it was before. Mattisgoo 15:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Many of the Delete votes here claim the article is not "encylopedic" and yet want the page merged into Fan criticism of George Lucas which is currently labelled "this article or section may require cleanup" and is little more than a list of gripes.
 * Further against the merge: Fan criticism of George Lucas is actually "original research". It lists only 5 references, all copied from Lucas Bashing, and all are actually about Lucas Bashing.
 * Fan cruft is a valid argument although the determination remains difficult. That peer reviewed research papers define, examine and discuss the term (Elana Sheffrin, "Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, and participatory fandom: mapping new congruencies between the internet and media entertainment culture", Critical Studies in Media and Communication, Pages 261 - 281, Volume 21, Number 3, September 2004) would indicate a penetration outside the fan community.
 * Bush Bashing was deleted for the reason "Contains no information beyond what is implicit in the title" . Lucas Bashing details attributes, nostalgia, flaming -- root causes, significance, ad hominem, etc.
 * Vandalism, POV disputes and Delete debates on this page which never do more than cry "not encyclopedic", "original research" and "inherently biased" make supporting controversial pages on Wikipedia extremely hard -- they are just names insulting the page rather than arguments about the content. Never do people say: this paragraph doesn't give a source. Never has anyone said: the core idea is supposed to be X but you drift off into Y. Never do I see: this source has been discredited. Actually, most people on the talk page seem convinced that this page gives no sources. The only assumption can be that people vote against the page because the title offends them or the whole concept offends them because I've never seen an argument over the content.
 * It's not the most significant topic on Wikipedia, nor does it need to be. It's not the best written article on Wikipedia, nor does it need to be. It is adequately referenced and yet gets nothing but grief from often irrational posters (read Talk:Lucas_bashing some time). I really think that deleting this page would be a win for censorship and motivated fans against the efforts of people trying to support topics with research and facts.Mattisgoo 03:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect as per Pboyd04. No merge, because this article is terrible. -- GWO


 * Redirect to Fan criticism of George Lucas seems like a good choice, but I'm not adverse to deletion. Cedars 09:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep
 * These "original research" comments are puzzling in light of the journal papers and other resources cited (excluding fan forum links of course). Given the existance of these sources, discussion and analysis of this topic clearly exists outside Wikipedia. Please (re)read the article and supporting references before making a call for deletion or merging. If after (re)reading the article in detail there remains anything that is unreferenced, please make a note of it on the talk page. These blanket "original research" statements without highlighting specific areas does not help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia.
 * As has previously been mentioned on the first deletion discussion, the Fan criticism of George Lucas page was created to remove unreferenced material from the Lucas Bashing page. I doubt that anyone who suggests merging has actually had a good look at Lucas Bashing and Fan criticism of George Lucas; while the former is well researched and well written, the latter is just a collection of fans' complaints about the Lucas films and is unsupported and unreferenced.Zukeeper 12:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment actually, the keepers have a point.. Fan criticism of George Lucas is an even stronger candidate for deletion. Still, one thing at a time. Zargulon 14:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete or Redirect Wow this one is really over the top. Unencyclopedic entry. Fancruft.--Nick Y. 23:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect. There's no "there" there.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * I'm going to voice a strong objection to the manner in which Delete votes are being cast (and it's not supposed to be a vote):
 * No argument has been made against the content of the article yet
 * These are the assertions made (without reference to the article itself) against the article so far:
 * "This would parallel how Bush Bashing was handled"
 * "non-notable topic"/"fan cruft"
 * "not encyclopedic"
 * "Neologism"
 * Yet none of these points have attempted to support themselves with evidence. Here is why none of them actually work as arguments:
 * On Bush Bashing, juding only from the deletion votes (since the article is no longer accessible):
 * Bush Bashing had no information beyond the title.
 * It had nothing to offer about the bashers or the individuals involved.
 * There is already an adequately written page on Bush criticism.
 * By contrast, this article:
 * Details the evolution of the community which has led to the schism
 * Point out why the schism is interesting (an ongoing divide between otherwise like-minded fans)
 * Only mentions the existence of criticism in 2 sentences and has no overlap with the totally unreferenced, questionably neutral, significantly unstructured, Fan criticism of George Lucas article.
 * On notability, I quote (from WP:Notability) "notability is not formal policy", and it is generally considered that anything "based on verifiable information from reliable sources, without straying into original research" is notable enough. It's generally accepted that a number of references from different sources are required. This article has 1 research paper from a large journal (plus one on bashing more generally), 2 print newspapers, 4 large online news sources, plus some dozen sundries. The article has also never suffered from a lack of regular edits, changes, comments about content and reliability and POV discussions in its 8 month history; again supporting the argument that it is notable enough.
 * Not encyclopedic isn't an argument, just a vote since it can't be determined what you mean by it as a statement. This is supposed to be an effort to reach concensus. Since almost all Deleters here so far have a history of participating in delete discussions, you would think that you should all know better by now. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you mean every test in WP:NOT is failed, let's look at them all.
 * "Not a paper encyclopedia" -- well the article isn't too long.
 * "Not a dictionary" -- the article does define the term but it goes into details that fit well outside a dictionary's scope.
 * "Not a puplisher of original thought". Again:
 * 1 journal paper which spends 3 paragraphs defining and analyzing the two camps of "Lucas bashers" and "Lucas gushers"
 * 2 print newspapers, one which defines the term explicitly and looks at the community
 * 4 online news sources, two of which explicitly define the term.
 * Almost a dozen other sources, explicitly defining the term, some of which go into great detail about "fan schisms", basher and gusher motivations, traits, etc.
 * "Not a soapbox" -- this isn't an ad for anything. The assertion has been made that the article is trying to "invent" the term. Read the dates on the sources, the term plainly predates the creation of this article.
 * "Repository of links" -- no.
 * "Indiscriminate collection of information" -- no.
 * "Crystal ball" -- no.
 * Lastly, on "Neologism": "Lucas bashing" and "Lucas gushing" are fan community terms and they are not authoritative. "Lucas" is often omitted or replaced with "Star Wars" and this is mentioned in the article. The term are used in the journal paper and both newspaper sources which would satisfy Articles on neologisms. Even were this not the case, I would argue that the article is not about the term but the behaviour of the fan community and the rift that formed over changes and additions to it's base.
 * So finally, make an argument people! You're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia and few of you are forming complete sentences (I know that's a rude thing to say but the quality of the delete votes is seeming absurd to me and it's frustrating). Show a little good faith about trying to reach a concensus. By simply voting for deletion, or raising points so broad and unfounded that it amounts to a vote, you're violating Deletion_policy in a misguided attempt to uphold WP:NOT.
 * Mattisgoo 01:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Mattisgoo, consensus does not mean complete agreement; here, there is no need to "reach" a consensus, as it clearly exists already, namely that this page doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The main point that you seem to be missing is that Star Wars is basically not a big deal. Join the consensus, or don't join it, but please stop spamming refutations to arguments that have been made only in your imagination; the only effect is to make this page more difficult to read, which may irritate the the adjudicator but will not change their decision. Zargulon 02:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment With respect, I see no evidence for your assertion that "[consensus] exists already". As Mattisgoo has already stated, this is not a vote, so simply saying "Delete" or "Redirect" without supporting evidence, and without any indication that the voter has actually taken the time to read the article, does not indicate in any way shape or form that consensus has been reached. I have not read anything on this page that I would consider as reasonable justification for a deletion. As for your request that Mattisgoo "stop spamming refutations to arguments that have been made only in [his/her] imagination", I believe that he has quoted "Rehcsif" on "This would parallel how Bush Bashing was handled", yourself on "non-notable topic", "Nick Y" on "fan cruft", "Pboyd04" on "not encyclopedic" and "Trialsanderrors" on "Neologism". He has gone through each of the statements and refuted each argument with reference to various Wikipedia policies, presenting his arguments for why this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. May I suggest that if you wish to continue with your argument that this article should be deleted, you could go through the Wikipedia criteria for deletion and give examples from the Lucas bashing page that meet these criteria. Zukeeper 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. I also feel that neither m nor Z really understands the concept of consensus.. they seem to feel that it means "persuading everybody", whereas the normal meaning is "overwhelming agreement" (as is the case here). As a tiny minority, the burden is certainly on you to demonstrate why "Lucas Bashing" should be in WP, but m's attitude has merely been to argue (at gargantuan length) that removing it would be unjust. Z's implication that voters who didn't leave a comment may not have read the article carefully enough to reach an opinion is nothing other than an imputation of bad faith, and it has been noted. Zargulon 07:29, 19 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.