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 of the debate was keep. Good arguments from both sides, but even though AfD is not a vote, the numbers to keep tipped the balance their way – even with the sock votes discounted. --Ezeu 22:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per this[1]. Definite bad faith nom. Yanksox 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree w/ Yanksox. This article could be pared down considerably, but there is no basis for deletion. Kafziel 16:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the article contains a lot of detailed information which should not simply be deleted. It is of great interest to people such as myself, and is the sort of thing wikipedia is made for. Also, per Yanksox. --Tim(talk), (contribs) 17:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith or otherwise, this is pure fancruft. Delete and good riddance. Take it to Wookieepedia. -- GWO
Delete per nom.--Brownlee 17:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, it is a large article made by star wars fans (obviously), it appears to be quite good and shouldn't be deleted without a good reason, "nn-not-real-sport-cruft" doesn't fit with me as a valid reason to delete such an article.--Andeh 17:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment user currently has 5 edits and may have afded this in bad faith, per Tim.--Andeh 17:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is probably of enough interest not to be deleted as 'fancruft'. Trebor 18:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, textbook definition of non-notable fancruft... or to be more specific: very large obsessively and scarily detailed fancruft. It's not remotely suitable for Wikipedia. As GWO noted, take it wookieepedia. Or possible turn it into a Wikibook so all the wannabe Jedi Knights can learn their stuff... and you won't have the same extreme problems of trying to justify its existence in an encylopedia. - Motor (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No vote - Just wanted to say that the cruft level of this article is an embarrassment. While I'm not sure whether or not this should be here, it should certainly be trimmed to something readable at least... Wickethewok 19:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I've removed the "speedy" from my "keep" since it certainly doesn't apply anymore, but since this was nom'd w/o discussion and is more than a year old, with many different editors having contributed to it, I think it deserves a chance to be cut down (by a lot) rather than being completely erased out of hand. Real-life content is possible; I assume the actors (if there were any real actors in the prequels) performing the stunts did have to learn all that stuff. If the fan fiction stuff can be reduced to a minimum and replaced with reality, it could have a place here. The rest can move to Wookieepedia. Kafziel 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree strongly as well. This is utterly terrifying in its degree of absorption in its subject, and I find myself hoping that somehow a compromise can be found in which I, when reading it, am reminded at least every few pages that the whole thing's fictional. Cruft-smanship doesnt even begin to cover this. Hornplease 05:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This entire article seems to be one absolutely huge case of original research — at least, I don't see a cite anywhere. Am I missing something? — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 20:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The various forms are used extensively to characterize SW characters. --maru (talk) contribs 20:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WCityMike. Or transwookiewiki. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify comment. What's good is WP:OR, even if the primary sources are properly referenced. (Which they are not.) If there are notable fan publications (this is not an oxymoron) cited which perform this fighting style analysis, then my "vote" would be "Weak Keep". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because this subject is covered extensively elsewhere doesn't mean that it shouldn't be covered here. So what if some people here don't like Star Wars minutae? The form info is not fan fiction but actually taken from sources at Starwars.com and rpg sources. Obviously, clean up and more citing is needed. Coridan | (talk) 6 June 2006
Delete as per nomination. Nertz 00:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the basic information already exists in the article for lightsaber. You know it's bad when an inclusionist like me wants to get rid of it. Rob 14:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only if sufficient information cites are added. Delete per nom if not. Voice of Treason 14:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for reasons already stated. It's interesting! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nell (talk • contribs)
Weak keep and cleanup. While I'm a big fan of linking to Wookieepedia, I think a good Wikipedia article exists somewhere in here. Obviously needs citing and probably some trimming, but I'd like to give the editors a chance to address those concerns first. BryanG(talk) 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, forget the "weak" part. There's almost no discussion on the talk page about the need for improvements. This really should have been discussed first before taking it to AfD. BryanG(talk) 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very important part of a very important fictional universe. More important to actual characterization than, say, most Middle-earth places. -LtNOWIS 02:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwookie this is too much unverifiable fancruft. Eluchil404 02:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page contains very interesting information about the Star Wars saga and absolutely should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.246.2.6 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Keep Sure it could be formatted a bit better; that just means we should work on improving it, rather than deleting it altogether. EVula 18:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. This is an excellent Article and contains comprehensive information that is used by many people. That data compiled into this article contains much information that is generally not available in a single article elsewhere. Master Mor El Kesav 19:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, user's only edits are to this AFD discussion. - Motor (talk) 08:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question- Why are the articles on lightsaber combat in Wookieepedia and Wikipedia so different? They have different types of information. Bibliomaniac15
Wookieepedia and Wikipedia are different wikis, not copies of each other. Different editors wrote the article here and the article there. Also, since Wookieepedia is devoted to Star Wars, they obviously can go into more detail than is usually accepted here. BryanG(talk) 22:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or merge to light saber. Star Wars is a very notable phenomenon, and it's great that Wikipedia has articles about it, but the level of detail in this article is too deep to be of interest to anyone except hard-core fans. It is approaching fancruft. JIP | Talk 09:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more I read the article, the less hope I see for all those fancrufty detailed explanations. They're not even verifiable. I'm therefore strenghtening my vote. JIP | Talk 10:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's enough info at lightsaber to suffice. All of this is unencyclopedic overkill. GassyGuy 13:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN fancruft. LotLE×talk 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you guys don't like it don't read it pretty simple eh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.6.17 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This, and "it doesn't do any harm", are useless arguments. With this logic, we would speedily keep articles about lint found in people's pockets. JIP | Talk 12:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Cleanup as per Voice of Treason and BryanG (Though I must agree with user JIP | Talk in the above comment...)
Keep and cleanup In my opinion, it's one of the best Star Wars articles on wikipedia. Siyavash 23:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is interesting. I didn't know lightsaber combat had great depth. --Dark Tichondrias
Keep and Cite This is an informative and in-depth article about a very specific, and quite possibly nerdy, area of a fictional universe. So are Klingon language and Morgoth. This is the beauty of Wikipedia. I remember being amazed that in one place I could find a list of politicians on The West Wing 'and' a detailed explanation of aortic dissection. This article just needs citations, and it would be a loss to delete it.Nscheffey(T/C) 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cite as per Nscheffey. This page is extremely useful to my Star Wars: Jedi Academy clan, it's no worse than some other sci-fi entries, it just needs citations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.85.149 (talk • contribs) 20:26, June 14, 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep -- This is a great article on the Star Wars extpanded universe. As for all the lack of citations, I guess people just missed all those "according to the MMRPG..." and "____ novel clearly states..." The sources of some statements could be clarified, but it's really a wonderful article! Also, what happened to Form III??? Did someone already try to take that part down?????? -interested reader, wcdeich 14, June 2006 Wcdeich 20:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- This article does have citations as stated above and most of the information available here is not available elsewhere, It would be a shame to lose such an informative article that is used regularily. Metroidragon Wednesday, 2006-06-14 23:00 UTC
Keep and Cite as per Nscheffey. Barnas 23:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cite also. There's a treasure trove of information here, and from the descriptions of lightsaber combat I know from games and several books, a lot of it is accurate. It just needs citations. The page reminds me of how the Force Powers page used to look, but the Force Powers page is pretty clean now ever since we started enforcing citation. We just need to work at it. There is no need to throw out the entire article. -- Solberg 07:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly this article is well written and articulate enough to be included in Wiki. Citation is possibily needed for some areas. The main point is it is a extremely reliable and valid source that only need a "bibliography" so to speak. The fact that it revolves a fan-based media and also offical statements is evidence enough to further preserve and uphold this article's existence. Thank You and God Bless. 15 June 2006 "OneiroPhobia"— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.88.245.88 (talk • contribs)
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.