Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Making of 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   keep. consensus seems clear after the relisting;i have no personal opinion.  DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The Making of Star Wars

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article Fails WP:GNG and appears to have no hope of improvement Lucia Black (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - a documentary that aired on national network television about one of the biggest films of all time is hardly something that fails WP:GNG - while the article needs sourcing, keep in mind this is a 35 year old program - "no hope of improvement" is clearly an incorrect opinion, as I found reliable cites with a cursory Google search. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the "proof" provided was over retail information. Which does not prove notability.Lucia Black (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC) 
 * Comment many things aired on national network that also fail notability. To believe everything related to the main article is notable is a sign of msguidance. Also hear-believe will not work here. Sayng you found the sources but not provide proof is a sense of WP:OWN.Lucia Black (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - perhaps you should try looking at my recent edits to the article where I added sources before you accuse me again of not offering the proof you want. Your condescending tone is not appreciated. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. No opinion yet, but IMDb should not be cited as a reference, and the rest are fairly weak as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Notability (films) also needs to be taken into account along with WP:GNG. Betty Logan (talk) 12:00, 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)

 what info is that? No development. No reception and even one review wont save it. It has to be information backed up through third party such as reception. Premise is mainly making it and thatg doesnt require sourcing.Lucia Black (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As far as Notability (films), I think that there is enough information on this particular film that it would clutter up the Richard Schickel page, the writer of the film (who has an entry while the director does not). This is one of the criteria for "Other evidence of notability." As for the references, not all of them are of the highest quality, but it's not required that they all be in order to establish notability. The review from Entertainment Weekly is just one example of a critical review on the film by a nationally known critic. Lord Arador (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lord Arador. Significant cleanup of sourcing would be good, but AfD is not for cleanup. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the probblem isnt clean up. Its lack of sources and third party opinion to make it notable.Lucia Black (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I contend that "no hope of improvement" was not merely wrong in retrospect, after citations were added, but failed WP:BEFORE: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.". Anarchangel (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per MikeWazowski. Not every article needs to ba a GA; there's enough out there to satisfy the WP:GNG at least. Nominator didn't follow through enough on WP:BEFORE. Sergecross73   msg me   18:19, 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.