Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SP FX: The Empire Strikes Back


 * 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. consensus seems clear after the relisting; I have no personal opinion of my own  DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

SP FX: The Empire Strikes Back

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails WP:GNG and has no hope of improvement. Lucia Black (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 5.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - a documentary that aired on national network television about one of the biggest films of its time is hardly something that fails WP:GNG - while the article needs sourcing, keep in mind this is a 32 year old program - "no hope of improvement" is clearly an incorrect opinion, as I found a reliable cite with a cursory Google search. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment – Notability (films) also needs to be taken into account along with WP:GNG. Betty Logan (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sometimes referred to as SPFX: The Empire Strikes Back. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Again MIkewazowski. Notability isn't based on the main article's success. This article has to be proven it is notable. I honestly do not see how old the topic of the article matters either. The information is only release. WHich in turn anyone can make any article out of that. However does not make them any more notable topics. If you provide information such as development and reception, that would definitely prove ts notability.Lucia Black (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Re "hope of improvement": mentions in print: there's substantial coverage in NY Public Library, Bibliographic guide to technology, vol 2, G. K. Hall., 1983 (a portion of this is on Google Books) and a mention of uncertain length in Gene Wright, The science fiction image: the illustrated encyclopedia of science fiction in film, television, radio and the theater, Facts on File, 1983. You can find the original TV Guide listing on Google Books too. Another mention attesting to its fan value. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the print sources found by Colapeninsula. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that those print sources provided by Colapeninsula help establish notability, and they certainly show that the references can be improved and expanded. Again, as for Notability (films) there is definitely enough information on this topic that it would clutter up the Richard Schickel page. Lord Arador (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on main reason for keep the source barely provide much info on sp fx other than a small opinion. One small out of context mention. Can we find more direct source of notability.Lucia Black (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. No reason at all to delete this article.  Very well-written and properly referenced.  Also very notable.  LogicalCreator (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK stop lying sorry for the incivlity. but i honestly hope this doesn't get do to vote count and can tell when someone is going to rely on democracy. well written has nothing to do with being AfD. well referenced? not true only 2, and not enough 3rd party. notable has to do with references.Lucia Black (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Accusing other editors who disagree with you of "lying" is incredibly uncivil. Can you not consider the possibility you were incorrect? Not all AfDs end in deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, I've never seen someone summarize their comment/response at AFD as a "command to stop lying". Anyways, please assume good faith, and remember that just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they're lying. There's plenty of gray area in between. (In theory, even if someone was downright wrong, they could just be misinformed, which wouldn't make them a liar.) Sergecross73   msg me   19:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to be notable enough for it to be included. Not a major documentary by any means, but that's a pretty high bar to set, and would require much pruning of articles if required. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Either Move to SPFX: The Empire Strikes Back, or improve the current article with the considerably larger number of sources under that name. Not as much improved as the similarly nominated article (Articles for deletion/The Making of Star Wars), but much evidence of "hope for improvement". Anarchangel (talk) 23:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found this comment on the Wikiproject Film talk page from the nominator - "Can we please get some input in here? It would be a shame to have this be kept over one oppose." after posting the two AfDs. SL93 (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not a great article, but there's enough there, or out there, to meet the WP:GNG. The potential is there. Sergecross73   msg me   19:06, 17 April 2012 (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.