Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Revisited


 * 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Star Wars Revisited

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fan edit film, doesn't seem notable enough. Except for one brief newspaper article, all other sources are fan edit forums. Google search just turns up blogs and forums. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

— JediTenken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Star Wars A New Hope Revisited falls under the same guidelines of The Phantom Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_Edit. If you actually seen this version of Star Wars you'd understand how important it is regardless of being a fan edit and it should be recorded for posterity. —Preceding JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 03:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

As per other evidence of notability: 1. The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, etc. Star Wars Revisited is an extremely advanced amateur edit of one of the most popular feature films ever made. It's notable of its own accord, as a milestone of amateur film editing, regardless of it's source material. Article should be preserved.Usa1936 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * — Usa1936 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  04:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.  --  N / A  0  04:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Adywan and Star Wars Revisited was also featured in the movie *The People vs George Lucasand the director spoke about Adywans work in this *Interviewwhich also gives an example of this edit. This article should not be deleted Vizualeyez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC). — Vizualeyez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Weak Keep One reliable reference, and i09.com seems credibly independent and a professional outfit. If kept, the waffly, unreferenced and unreliably-referenced material could be removed; to a stub if necessary. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep despite the SPA interest. As Baffle notes, the film is receiving coverage. Yes, article will require cleanup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The Phantom Edit was covered by several mainstream media outlets and the best this one can muster is a blog, which doesn't count as a reliable source. There are many fan edits of Star Wars, and this one is no more notable than any other one. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:FYI, the principle reference is from a US local newspaper The Meridian Star.Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:So it relies heavily on a local newspaper. The Phantom Edit had coverage on a national scale from several major media outlets. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:The mere fact that this edit exists is worth of noting in cinematic history as an amazing accomplishment. Furthermore the reason why the Phantom edit was covered so widely was the it was distributed around studios in hollywood thus making it "mainstream". It was looking for attention... However, for the most part, Adywan's Revisited has been mainly word to mouth between fans and doesn't seek attention in such a self-serving way. Revisited has been very much for the fans, edited by a fan, and greatly fan appreciated:

ANH Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85531634143&ref=ts ESB Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=316830255423&ref=ts ROTJ Revisited facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=191796765221&ref=ts The Revisited Series Fan page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Adywans-Star-Wars-Revisited-Series/298232097264?ref=ts Delete it or not, regardless Revisited is out there and it's already apart of history. JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 07:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:Yes. And the same can be said for many edits on the Fan Edits website. I'm sure that a significant amount of effort went into creating this edit and others. That doesn't mean they are all of worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:But where other fanedits, including The Phantom Edit, just remove or rearrange existing footage in a movie, the Revisited edit(s) took fan edits to a whole new level by creating new effects and enhancing the movies visuals, which no other fan edit had done before in this way. It took the world of fan editing to a whole new level and therefore it is an important entry and should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizualeyez (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment:It is very true many effects shots were enhance or replaced entirely. The audio was also enhanced further and remixed. Errors in continuity via audio and visual were fixed along with additions from the original Star Wars Radio drama was used in key places. New scenes were added without breaking the flow of the film and very much done with ILM like precision. Here's a picture list of comparisons from ANH Revisited:

http://picasaweb.google.com/doubleofive/ANHRVisualComparison#. This is no mere fan edit, it is very much unique and sets a new precedent for fan edits everywhere. So it can't really be said tht Revisited is in the same catagory as other fan edit.


 * Delete as the nominator. I was holding off to see if anyone else was able to find more sourcing (I wasn't). This just isn't notable now. I understand the SPA's insistence that the edit is notable for creative reasons, but there are hundreds of Star Wars fan films out there. Phantom Edit drew some major attention from reliable secondary sources. This one hasn't. Dayewalker (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: If that's the case then Adywan himself belongs under these guidline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ARTIST#Creative_professionals if not Star Wars Revisited as a stand alone achievement in cinematic art. Suggest deletion here which is fine however, the main point is that there are thousands of different people that know about him and his edit and appreciate it regardless of how "mainstream" it's been and that number increases. Especially with Empire Strikes Back Revisited scheduled to be released in 2011.JediTenken comment added by JediTenken (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't see anything in that link that applies here. If you feel the creator is notable, feel free to create a Wikipedia page for him. Dayewalker (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This edit is receiving coverage and another reliable secondary source reference to Adywan's edit has been added from a reputable magazine PC WORLD. The Phantom Edit only gained attention due to the distribution around Hollywood studios whereas this edit has gained major attention purely from word of mouth. To delete this entry would be wrong. But i agree that the article does need cleaning up a little Vizualeyez (talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Claritas §  18:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Does that not suffice for it's inclusion in Wikipedia? IssueLips (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Star Wars Revisited and/or Adywan have been noted in:
 * 1) a U.S. local newspaper, The Meridian Star
 * 2) the documentary film The People v. George Lucas
 * 3) an independent, professional blog website io9.com (itself with a Wikipedia article)
 * 4) the international magazine PC World
 * Delete - References in third-party sources are fleeting; product has not garnered significant coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2010 (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.