Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural impact 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 No consensus. The topic obviously is one which could have a Wikipedia article. There was no consensus that the topic could not meet WP:N. The original research concerns raised were legitimate, but there were sufficient efforts during this AfD to at least move the consensus into a no consensus position. This seems a legitimate spinout article from Star_Wars#Legacy. There was no consensus that this article should be merged back into Star Wars. Jreferee t/c 06:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural impact of Star Wars

Stub, unsourced, US bias, and more than adequately covered in the main article. Just put it out of its misery. - Sikon 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's much more than this in the main article. Either move the material in the main page here or delete; the former might be a good idea as the main page is getting long. This question is worthy of serious debate but I'm not sure AFD is the right forum. Alba 18:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also contains incorrect information, see my note on its talk page. Robert K S 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't merit a separate article. JJL 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial delete Pure original research. Mandsford 01:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand As Alba says, the solution is to move material from the main page here. there's enough for a separate article. If there is too much of a US bias--then add material dealing with other places. DGG (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pretty much all of the text is already covered in either the main star wars article or another, more relevant one. OR and redundant. Delete this one we should. Spawn Man 12:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excess fat needing a trim. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, because not original research, TV shows and major news has been dedicated to the topic a la CNN and even the Smithsonian had an exhibit that "examines the impact of the film 'Star Wars' on world culture of the late 20th century and how the George Lucas film trilogy has touched people of all ages through its use of classical mythology." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an OR essay and sounds like something that belongs on the main page, I should also point out this related AFD that resulted in a delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural references to Star Wars. Dannycali 02:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The external links now in the article show that there are reliable sources about the cultural impact Star Wars has had. They can be used to fix the article's problems. Bláthnaid 10:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- something Alkivar and I can agree on it seems. Come on, this is a clear delete... cultural impact of star wars? I know guys like DGG vote to keep everything (as near as I can tell), but this really has no place...JJJ999 13:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this personally, on this day's page I have 4 deletes and 6 keeps; If you look at my log, I delete about a dozen speedies a day. DGG (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is clearly original research. RobJ1981 14:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NOR Jbeach56 22:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand it really is not original research as per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Also "to put it out of its misery" is not a reason to nominate a page for deletion. --S.dedalus 03:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and expand per DGG and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Not OR. Nominated for wrong reasons. Rocket000 16:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this reads like an essay and violates our basic NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH policy. The cruft is strong with this one. Burntsauce 17:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article a little; it now has 7 reliable sources. Bláthnaid 21:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- good work on adding the refs... nonetheless, delete it.JJJ999 02:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why? The references address the original research issue, and your delete argument above is essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. DHowell 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Thanks to improvements by Le Grand Roi and Blathnaid, there are now 7 references, 14 inline citations, 13 external links most of which are reliable sources. This can no longer be considered original research. DHowell 00:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a subject worthy of its own page, and it is still mostly OR. The stuff that is no OR, like "phrases like x have become pop culture references" is the sort of thing you have a small para for at the bottom of the main article, reading "Star Wars in Populare Culture", not this completely superflous article which started off as OR, and is now masquerading as something credible to avoid deletion. All the links have no existence or need outside the main page, and it is too long anyway, most of the references could be condensed to one sentence. Fanboy page. Delete.JJJ999 04:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Eg, this para: 20th Century Fox optioned Star Wars. When it unexpectedly became the decade's blockbuster, grossing $100 million in three months, Fox's stock soared from $6 to $25 per share and generated revenues of $1.2 million a day for the studio. Fox purchased the Aspen skiing and Pebble Beach golf corporations with the increased cash flow and still declared excess profits in 1977. Income from Star Wars re-releases, sequels, and merchandising enriched the studio in the following decades. Star Wars helped Fox to change from an almost bankrupt production company to a thriving media conglomerate.[5]- This has to do with its cultural impact how? It doesn't obviously, and the reason its here is to fatten out a legitimate sub-article so it can pretend to be a real article.JJJ999 04:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well gee, I'm no expert but it seems to assert that without Star Wars saving it from bankruptcy Fox wouldn't have become a media conglomerate thus greatly impacting pop culture (hello. Homer Simpson? D'oh!). That's just a guess since I'm only reading it. Benjiboi 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is also my view Benjiboi. It shows that Star Wars had a huge influence on business culture as well as popular culture. How would today's media conglomerates have conglomerated (is that a real word?!) without Fox? What would Rupert Murdoch be doing? The article also has huge scope for expansion. Bláthnaid 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, in all honestly, every movie has had a "cultural impact" of sorts, but are they notable topics for an encyclopedia, no. I don't care how many cites there are, it is not a notable subject for its own page, plain and simple. It can easily be put on the main page. Dannycali 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars is in a league of its own, though. I think we will have to agree to disagree and let the closing admin decide. Bláthnaid 22:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Article certainly should be expanded and if I were the betting type I'd make money betting that dissertations on the subject exist. As is the article is too generalized so "drilling down" to provide some more examples of impact would be helpful. Benjiboi 08:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is no shame in changing an opinion on the basis of evidence shown in an Afd. I do it--in both directions -- when someone shows I've misjudged or finds something new. DGG (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - Perfectly good subject, article appears sound, afd seems to be completly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artw (talk • contribs) 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't even conceive why people think this article should be deleted. Looking at the pre-afd diff, sure, it was unsourced and only covered a few non-representative examples, but I can't think of a single film made in the last half century that has had a greater cultural impact. Star Wars changed the movie industry, entrenched itself into Western pop culture, and has influenced hundreds, maybe thousands of subsequent works. What's wrong with the article is that it would have to be about 10 times longer before it could properly document the subject.--Father Goose 05:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, because the reasons have been repeatedly given... does it have a place in its new form? Yes. Is that place an article of its own? Of course not. Is most of the article relevant or notable beyond fanboy gossip? Not a chance.JJJ999 05:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.