Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. However, given the extremely high participation level of this debate, I think it would do to explain my take on the debate overall. First, the !vote is split nearly even. The main delete arguments are that this is a topic about the speculative future, and issues of OR. First, the OR concern is not explained well and seems to be misplaced (or, is on-target only for a part of the article that could be edited out). It's the crystal ball argument that is the major concern. But then, many keep comments have ignored that this is on a "crystal ball" topic and pointed to the sources as justification for keeping, but some have addressed it: this is not, they say, a topic about a hypothetical future event, but a topic about a movie project that has never gotten off the ground. When viewed that way, notability is a concern, but one quickly laid to rest by the abundance of sources. I don't think the community came to a consensus here but I think this keep counterargument has not been well addressed, except by refering to "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" in a dogmatic letter-of-the-rule kind of way. There does appear to be significant consensus that cleanup is needed, though. Mangojuicetalk 15:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)[edit]
- Sequel trilogy (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Entire page is nothing but speculation; relevant information can be merged with Star Wars. Chardish 01:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kepp. There is no speculation on the pahge. It is sourced with comments from official sources. The Wookieepedian 01:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- o rly? I didn't see any referenced statements. There was only one link in the body. The stuff is most certainly not sourced. Milto LOL pia 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - serious OR problems. There are a plethora of weasel words, all adding to the notion that this is all guesswork. Is this article about the rumor itself (meaning the rumor was notable) or about the rumored films? This certainly poses a problem. the_undertow talk 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Most of the article is about the actual discussion which have taken place. Only a small part, dealing with what might take place is speculative, and even it is sourced. I think this is a reasonable exception to the usual practice of not including articles about possible future films. DGG 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per The Wookieepedian. Article is fairly well sourced with print and online references. TheRealFennShysa 02:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless some AfD-happy jerk went and removed them before I read it, there is not a single referenced statement in the entire body of the article. Exactly which parts of the article do you feel are "well-sourced"? Milto LOL pia 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep yes, it's speculation, but it's sourced, however poorly. That said, it could use some workup to improve the quality since it does come across as a bit of OR. FrozenPurpleCube 02:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well-sourced articles may still be inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOT. - Chardish 02:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that's a position I've taken myself on other subjects, however, while this is indeed a future event, if it had occurred, there is no doubt it'd have an article. There's certainly interest today. Here's a CNN interview where the question is asked [1] to Mark Hamill about his thoughts. So, the question is, is this speculation which can be verified to having existed? I would say so. [2] is one possible source. Certainly not a great article, but it's on a reasonable subject to cover. FrozenPurpleCube 02:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - : This is not a future event; it is a speculative event. I believe that you have (in good faith) misread WP:CRYSTAL - it says that articles on anticipated events (in other words, events that are expected to occur) may be permitted under circumstances. There is no evidence to suggest that a "sequel trilogy" is even being worked on, and Wikipedia policy explicitly forbids articles that consist entirely of speculation, even collections of well-sourced speculations. - Chardish 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further clarification: There's no IMDB entry for any future Star Wars films (IMDB even covers movies in pre-production) and the notability criteria for films, though still in proposal stage, states that unreleased films do not warrant articles unless they are in production and the production is itself notable. - Chardish 05:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point being expressed and taking an overly literal approach to rules. See WP:BURO (Mostly brought up because you asked about it below). It's clearly established that there is existing speculation on these movies outside of Wikipedia. The movies are highly notable, and therefore, a carefully written article that discusses the speculation is appropriate. Perhaps you might want to look at the WW3 AFD, another situation about a thing that didn't happen, probably won't happen, yet people have talked about, written about, and otherwise commented on it. That applies in this case as well, not just one blurb in Variety, or a single interview, but a number of sources. FrozenPurpleCube 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, and not the letter, that says that speculative articles have no place on Wikipedia. I agree that a couple of the cited sources are worth including in the Star Wars article, but a series of rumors about a film that isn't even being planned doesn't warrant its own article. It's not an "upcoming film" or an "anticipated film", it's rumors. World War III is an idea that has been explored in fiction and applied by the press to actual wars, making it notable. - Chardish 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think the spirit of the section is that there are problems with unsubstantiated ideas being tossed around that never amount to anything. In this case though, even the fact of nothing happening is notable because well, several people involved in the films have said some things discussing it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, and not the letter, that says that speculative articles have no place on Wikipedia. I agree that a couple of the cited sources are worth including in the Star Wars article, but a series of rumors about a film that isn't even being planned doesn't warrant its own article. It's not an "upcoming film" or an "anticipated film", it's rumors. World War III is an idea that has been explored in fiction and applied by the press to actual wars, making it notable. - Chardish 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're missing the point being expressed and taking an overly literal approach to rules. See WP:BURO (Mostly brought up because you asked about it below). It's clearly established that there is existing speculation on these movies outside of Wikipedia. The movies are highly notable, and therefore, a carefully written article that discusses the speculation is appropriate. Perhaps you might want to look at the WW3 AFD, another situation about a thing that didn't happen, probably won't happen, yet people have talked about, written about, and otherwise commented on it. That applies in this case as well, not just one blurb in Variety, or a single interview, but a number of sources. FrozenPurpleCube 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that's a position I've taken myself on other subjects, however, while this is indeed a future event, if it had occurred, there is no doubt it'd have an article. There's certainly interest today. Here's a CNN interview where the question is asked [1] to Mark Hamill about his thoughts. So, the question is, is this speculation which can be verified to having existed? I would say so. [2] is one possible source. Certainly not a great article, but it's on a reasonable subject to cover. FrozenPurpleCube 02:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, despite having serious problems. Sr13 (T|C) 03:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article has serious problems, why should it be kept? I am curious. - Chardish 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the original research and weasel words can definitely be fixed. As long as there are reliable sources, WP:NOT#CBALL can be deemed void. Sr13 (T|C) 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to press the issue, but how can WP:NOT#CBALL be deemed void? Most AfD discussions are concerning notability or verifiability - but neither of these are the issue here. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a repository for speculation - even sourced speculation - on films that are not being produced and may never be produced. - Chardish 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because WP:NOT#CBALL says: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis mine). This article meets both criteria in the first sentence, and is on a subject that is described as appropriate in the second. Therefore this guideline does not say that this article should be deleted. JulesH 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sorry about that. Sr13 (T|C) 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These films are not "anticipated" at all, since Lucas has been saying for the past 24 years that they won't be made. They're just as "anticipated" as, say, Harry Potter 8, and any claim to the contrary is an OR judgment. - Chardish 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The films clearly were anticipated, as can be seen by the number of independent reliable sources that have discussed them. I've never seen any reliable sources discussing the possibility of an eighth HP installment. Besides, the last phrase in the section I quoted clearly acknowledges that discussions of whether something will occur or not are a form of anticipation, and that is the kind of discussion we have here. JulesH 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "anticipated" and actually going into production are two different things. What you are condoning is that we create an article for every dick, jane and harry film that any studio "would like" to make, but never actually even starts the process for. .......Did you guys hear that?? Warner Brothers wants to make a movie about Wikipedia, let's create an article called "Wikipedia (film)". I mean, it isn't like that belongs on the Wikipedia article, it's something that deserves it's own article outright, just because someone happened to mention the idea. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The films clearly were anticipated, as can be seen by the number of independent reliable sources that have discussed them. I've never seen any reliable sources discussing the possibility of an eighth HP installment. Besides, the last phrase in the section I quoted clearly acknowledges that discussions of whether something will occur or not are a form of anticipation, and that is the kind of discussion we have here. JulesH 20:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- These films are not "anticipated" at all, since Lucas has been saying for the past 24 years that they won't be made. They're just as "anticipated" as, say, Harry Potter 8, and any claim to the contrary is an OR judgment. - Chardish 20:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to press the issue, but how can WP:NOT#CBALL be deemed void? Most AfD discussions are concerning notability or verifiability - but neither of these are the issue here. The issue is that Wikipedia is not a repository for speculation - even sourced speculation - on films that are not being produced and may never be produced. - Chardish 07:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the original research and weasel words can definitely be fixed. As long as there are reliable sources, WP:NOT#CBALL can be deemed void. Sr13 (T|C) 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article has serious problems, why should it be kept? I am curious. - Chardish 05:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has enough valid sources. Needs major work to remove unsourced and unverifiable details, but enough of it is verifiable and sourced.--Dacium 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, TheRealFennShysa is a significant contributor to this article (History), and thus has breached WP:COI by voting here.
- I don't see anything in WP:COI that says someone who contributes significantly to an article isn't allowed to take a position in an AfD. Craig Butz 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:COI does not prohibit participation in AfD discussions when one significantly contributes to an article, but attempts to prevent participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors, and I see no precedent to conclude as such. Sr13 (T|C) 07:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't think it's wrong for a person to participate in an AFD for articles they've worked on, but in the interest of keeping the right appearances, it's a good idea to disclose being a major editor. FrozenPurpleCube 13:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything in WP:COI that says someone who contributes significantly to an article isn't allowed to take a position in an AfD. Craig Butz 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The concept of a Star Wars sequel trilogy is a noteworthy historic (decades-old) cultural meme worth documenting. I stumbled across it because I was looking for exactly this kind of encyclopedic information on the subject. The article isn't speculative. It is a documented factual account of a speculative subject. We don't delete Apocalypse and Rapture because they're speculative (and less likely to occur than further Star Wars sequels.) Craig Butz 05:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Apocalypse and Rapture are notable aspects of notable religions. The study of religion deals with matters of speculation, and it's acceptable to assert what people believe about those events. The study of film, on the other hand, is concerned with films that have been released or films that are in production. It is not interested in vague rumors about upcoming films that may never be made, especially when the official statement of the filmmaker is that it will never be made. I challenge you to find another article about a film idea that is not in any stage of production. - Chardish 17:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For many committed Star Wars fans, it seems a Star Wars movie that will never be made is only slightly less real than the ones that have been committed to celluloid. Looking at the sheer length of the article, which goes on and on and on, one appreciates the true dedication that StarWar fanatics bring to their craft. (The reworking of the projected timeline from 40 to 39 years is a good example.) But, ultimately this is an article about a movie (or movies) that don't exist. You don't need WP's Crystal Ball guideline to tell you that this isn't right: that's common sense. Eusebeus 09:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The sequel trilogy was inherently notable, as part of the Star Wars series. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 14:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blantant original research and speculation. Mangoe 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well sourced, not original research at all, contains important historical information about Lucas's plans for the film series and how it changed over the years. That Lucas originally said there would be nine stories in the series is widely reported and hence notable. That such films will probably not be produced (at least in the near future) does not make the article any less valid. Meets the tests suggested by WP:CRYSTAL for valid articles discussing speculative events. JulesH 16:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Original research often has a lot of sources too. This article is basically a synthesis of a bunch of primary sources, trying to assemble a picture of what may or may not be happening. By WP standards, it is original work. Someone else could put together the same or additional sources and come up with a different conclusion. Mangoe 17:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What conclusion does the article make? It doesn't advance one position or another, as far as I can tell. Zagalejo 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - : It is worth noting that the article on the upcoming sixteenth season of the reality show Survivor was deleted, even though it is very likely that the season will be produced. The notability of Star Wars does not mean that speculative rumors about Star Wars are notable. - Chardish 17:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that this argument is just the negated form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the comparison is ludicrous. Frankly, the yet-to-be-made sixteenth season of Survivor is substantially less notable than the possibility that additional star wars films will be made. What can be said about Survivor 16? It is the (numerous) discussions that have occurred about whether these films will be made, leading towards the conclusion that they won't be, that makes the idea notable. What discussions have occurred about the possibility of Survivor 16? Have third party reliable sources discussed the possibility? See WP:N. There have been multiple, nontrivial independent reliable sources written about this subject. Many of them are listed in the references section of the article we're discussing. JulesH 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that the article was deleted in violation of WP:NOT, which all the "keep" !votes here seem to be brushing over. I challenge you to find another article on a film idea that is not even planned to be produced. I would be surprised if there are any that have survived an AfD. The big-name appeal of Star Wars does not grant it immunity from WP:NOT. - Chardish 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you can find many examples at Category:Cancelled films(not to mention the categories on the same branch, for television and even books). And while it was merged, Ender's Game does have a film section as well. Not quite the same, since there are plans for production, but I don't think coverage of this subject is as anathema as you think. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those examples are of films that either had scripts written, had been picked up by a studio, or had entered production. Since none of those apply to any rumored Star Wars sequel, they're more of a mythical idea than actual planned films. I might be prodding a couple of them for lack of notability, but at least there's something concrete to base the articles on, apart from just base speculation. - Chardish 20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you can find many examples at Category:Cancelled films(not to mention the categories on the same branch, for television and even books). And while it was merged, Ender's Game does have a film section as well. Not quite the same, since there are plans for production, but I don't think coverage of this subject is as anathema as you think. FrozenPurpleCube 17:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was that the article was deleted in violation of WP:NOT, which all the "keep" !votes here seem to be brushing over. I challenge you to find another article on a film idea that is not even planned to be produced. I would be surprised if there are any that have survived an AfD. The big-name appeal of Star Wars does not grant it immunity from WP:NOT. - Chardish 17:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that this argument is just the negated form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the comparison is ludicrous. Frankly, the yet-to-be-made sixteenth season of Survivor is substantially less notable than the possibility that additional star wars films will be made. What can be said about Survivor 16? It is the (numerous) discussions that have occurred about whether these films will be made, leading towards the conclusion that they won't be, that makes the idea notable. What discussions have occurred about the possibility of Survivor 16? Have third party reliable sources discussed the possibility? See WP:N. There have been multiple, nontrivial independent reliable sources written about this subject. Many of them are listed in the references section of the article we're discussing. JulesH 17:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all appropriate discussion to Star Wars. It is crystal balling to create an article on this subject, which has no real-world context (where there is supposed to be one, as opposed to abstract topics like world peace on Wikipedia). Discussion about the film should be preserved, but needs to be referenced inline better and fall under a broader topic, in this case, Star Wars. When this trilogy is actually produced, and there are no signs of that at the present, then this would warrant its own article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge any potentially encyclopedic information. For the first comment by Wookieepedian, The opening sentence doesn't help the article any by proudly proclaiming that it's all "rumor". Sorry, that IS speculation. Since Wikipedia is not a rumormill, this does not need an article, nor mentioning on any other article. Reliably citing some fanboy that says he thinks Lucas might make more films, just because he didn't deny not making the films, is not what we call "reliable", nor does it change the fact that it's speculation. It's all conjecture, based on interviews with Lucas, where people are simply saying "oh...Lucas said this..that's interesting...may he was hinting at making more Star Wars films". It has information like "fans thought", what fans? How many fans? Too many "fans think this"; very weasel wordy. Even better, directly from the article - "Currently, there are no firm plans to produce these films. Lucasfilm's stance is that the six Star Wars films comprise the entire story Lucas intended to tell, despite mentions to the contrary in the press and official publications over time.". Also, "canceled films" and "films that will never be made" are not even close. One deals with films that started to get made, but didn't make it, and the other is about films that are not planned, but more of a fanboy's wet dream. Basing an article on an interview that is 29 years old (speaking of course about the part that says Lucas originally planned 12 films) is a little weak. Especially following recent interviews with him stating that he isn't going to make another film. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As stated above the article begins by saying this is a "rumor". That sources exist for a rumor do not make it any less speculative. Wikipedia is not a rumor mill. To all the folks saying "Look, it has sources! Sources = not OR!", may I remind you of WP:SYN? That Lucas may have originally written the saga in 9 (or 12) episodes may or may not be the case, but it has become abundantly clear by his own mouth that the 6 now released encompass the entirety of his story. There are no plans to film a sequel, and again, Lucas has expressly made this clear. The bits about having written more stories in the past may or may not be important to the history of the development of the Star Wars theme, and if so can be mentioned elsewhere. How anyone can argue to keep an article that, according to the people in a position to decide, will never exist, is baffling to me. Arkyan • (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- there is enough valid references to keep, although a cleanup is necessary. Thunderwing 19:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These rumors have been bouncing around for decades, and I think it's nice to have an article that presents everything that's been said about the issue. (Regardless of what Lucas has said, lots of people still do believe that there are plans for three more movies. It's basically an urban legend.) And I don't see how WP:SYN applies. The article doesn't present an original argument; all it really does is list a bunch of quotes. Zagalejo 20:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of people you say? How about this many? Hmm...no..I think it really takes this many. So, you're saying that this page discusses an urban legend? That's funny, "regardless of what Lucas has said, ther eare lots of people that think there are plans for 3 more movies". Basically, you're saying that regardless of the fact that Britney Spears says she isn't psycho, that of lots of people believe it, then we should put that in her page. The logic behind any argument for this page is priceless. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How am I supposed to cite that? I don't have any statistics, but c'mon, this is common knowledge. I mean, look around: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. (I'm not suggesting these should be included in the article; I'm just trying to demonstrate the prevalence of the rumor.) That Britney Spears analogy is pretty out there... Zagalejo 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Bignole. The point of avoid weasel wording is to use attributable sources that reflect the widespread nature of certain information. In addition, the Internet can be misleading in terms of judging the public perception. For example, there's a vocal minority protesting Michael Bay's direction of Transformers, but that shouldn't be translated into a larger number. If attributable sources reflect that fans are interested in a sequel trilogy, then that can be reflected. Articles are supposed to be read like the person has never been aware of the subject before, and should be backed accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did find this 2004 magazine article that says, "But as we went to press, a nasty rumor started floating around the Web that Lucas is actually seriously considering making the Episodes 7 through 9 movies now." I'll see what else is out there. Zagalejo 21:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Common knowledge? To whom? It isn't common knowledge to me. I was aware a long time ago that there were more than just 6 stories, but never that Lucas intended to make them, especially after repeated (recent) interviews stating he wasn't. Common knowledge to fanboys maybe, but you can hardly say that what is common knowledge to the whole of society (e.g. 2+2=4) is equivalent to what is common knowledge among a select group of people, especially when the information in question is really "commonly awknowledged rumors". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with Bignole. The point of avoid weasel wording is to use attributable sources that reflect the widespread nature of certain information. In addition, the Internet can be misleading in terms of judging the public perception. For example, there's a vocal minority protesting Michael Bay's direction of Transformers, but that shouldn't be translated into a larger number. If attributable sources reflect that fans are interested in a sequel trilogy, then that can be reflected. Articles are supposed to be read like the person has never been aware of the subject before, and should be backed accordingly. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 21:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How am I supposed to cite that? I don't have any statistics, but c'mon, this is common knowledge. I mean, look around: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. (I'm not suggesting these should be included in the article; I'm just trying to demonstrate the prevalence of the rumor.) That Britney Spears analogy is pretty out there... Zagalejo 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of people you say? How about this many? Hmm...no..I think it really takes this many. So, you're saying that this page discusses an urban legend? That's funny, "regardless of what Lucas has said, ther eare lots of people that think there are plans for 3 more movies". Basically, you're saying that regardless of the fact that Britney Spears says she isn't psycho, that of lots of people believe it, then we should put that in her page. The logic behind any argument for this page is priceless. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd like to request for people to consider what would constitute an article. Some films, when initially announced, do not always enter production right away. If production never takes place, then there could never be enough content to create an article of encyclopedic length. I don't have an issue with the references used in the article, but they can be built into the real-world timeline of Lucas's plan for his Star Wars film series. Especially considering that he does not plan any more films, the information should be merged into Star Wars. The content is redundant, can be cleaned up in a more succinct manner, and placed in a more suitable location on the main Star Wars article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main Star Wars article is already 62K, so expanding it any more is not really a good idea. The information in this article is not a particularly important aspect of the overall subject and does not warrant space in such a cramped article -- the main thrust of it is about the history of the development of the series, and how Lucas's ideas have changed over time, from 12 films to 9 and finally down to the 6 he now seems content to finish with, which is of interest primarily to those who find the history of films and the process of writing interesting (i.e., it is a minority interest subject compared to many of the other sections in the main article). JulesH 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So now we have to create articles about how someone's opinion changes over 29 years? First, the Star Wars article is not 62kb long. What it says on the edit screen does not reflect the size limitations per article. You have to remove all HTML code from the the equation, because any characters, including spaces, are counted in that particular size total. Regardless, there is not enough encyclopedic content (when removing all that "the fans think" crap that isn't allowed in any other article) that would create a problem when merged into the series article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The main Star Wars article is already 62K, so expanding it any more is not really a good idea. The information in this article is not a particularly important aspect of the overall subject and does not warrant space in such a cramped article -- the main thrust of it is about the history of the development of the series, and how Lucas's ideas have changed over time, from 12 films to 9 and finally down to the 6 he now seems content to finish with, which is of interest primarily to those who find the history of films and the process of writing interesting (i.e., it is a minority interest subject compared to many of the other sections in the main article). JulesH 20:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a History of Star Wars article, then? Lucas's plan could be outlined in more than just the trilogies -- permitting the Expanded Universe, creating the Clone Wars series, etc. It just seems misleading to have a "Sequel trilogy (Star Wars)" article when there really isn't any trilogy. The information about this planned sequel trilogy isn't substantial enough to have its own article. I just think that the content could be relocated in a more suitable and encyclopedic location. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break[edit]
- Delete per nomination. — D. Wo. 22:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR Shindo9Hikaru 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit-conflicted comment: Normally a movie (or even three) that was at one time planned but ultimately not made would not merit an article because there would not be independent, reliable sources discussing such movie. However, this may be an exception, as the article quotes (but, frustratingly, does not cite) sources discussing the (apparently planned at one time) sequel trilogy. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Star Wars without a redirect, then delete. Granted that Lucas has indeed spoken about a third trilogy (thusly, I'm for merging some of this information), but he's waffled about it and has not only not put it into production, he's in fact made clear his current intentions of going no further. Despite his reputation for changing his mind in this regard, all of this pretty much makes this article speculative and crystalballery. The root article would be a better home for discussing this in some brief, unless somebody at Lucasfilm actually does something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; this is original research via synthesis. Perhaps Wookiepedia wants it; if so, it should be transwikied; if not, then it's probably not worth keeping. *** Crotalus *** 00:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - references seem valid, and for the most part from reliable third-party sources. While the movies are not likely to be made, the fact that they were at one point considered and referenced in national press such as Time confers notability, IMHO. MikeWazowski 05:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They were mentioned in "TIME" over 20 years ago, in a passing interview. Speaking of which, those "TIME" links seem to come up dead. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 05:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs some rewriting, not much though. Very well referenced too, all quotes are sourced, and there appears to be no blatant speculation and wishful thinking. I generally accept that unless a movie is in production there shouldn't be an article, but this has been speculated and mentioned for 30 years, and is surely notable as a phenomenon if not actual produced films - it's not guessing dates and actors as WP:CRYSTAL violations usually do, nor does it seem to be under any illusions that a sequel trilogy will actually be made. --Canley 08:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys are funny..."The sequel trilogy was a rumored film trilogy sequel to the original Star Wars trilogy, to be made by Lucasfilm." The entire article is blatant speculation, based on synthesis of interviews with Lucas, where there are even instances in this article with sentences like "this sounds like Lucas is hinting that he may make the films". BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These statements show original research, point of view, and speculation.
- rumored film trilogy
- a sequel was inevitable
- this remains conjectural
- Lucas is reported to have
- Although no longer widely accepted, it was once commonly believed
- An interview from May 2002 has another interesting quote
- Lucas has been known to say one thing and do another in the past, so many fans still hope
the_undertow talk 22:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that they do show OR, but if you're concerned about them, feel free to rewrite. FrozenPurpleCube 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I was concerned, I would rewrite. However, I feel this article does not meet guidelines for inclusion, so I'm not sure the jab about 'feeling free to rewrite' is appropriate. Besides, rewriting original research would logically result in the same original research, simply worded differently. I think you meant I should source it, and that I have tried. the_undertow talk 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, the problem is, this isn't Wikipedian's saying this stuff, thus it's not *our* original research. Somebody else doing their own research? That is acceptable for inclusion, as long as it's published in a more or less reputable source. Which is clearly the case here. Thus as I see it, if you do have a concern with those words, it's a concern for the choice of words, not a concern for the subject itself. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand what you are saying, I have a problem with the subject as well as the words. They are not mutually exclusive. You assert that the article is clearly cited, however, the items I listed are not sourced. But this is good to discuss, as there seem to be many users involved in this particular AFD. the_undertow talk 00:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Except, the problem is, this isn't Wikipedian's saying this stuff, thus it's not *our* original research. Somebody else doing their own research? That is acceptable for inclusion, as long as it's published in a more or less reputable source. Which is clearly the case here. Thus as I see it, if you do have a concern with those words, it's a concern for the choice of words, not a concern for the subject itself. FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If I was concerned, I would rewrite. However, I feel this article does not meet guidelines for inclusion, so I'm not sure the jab about 'feeling free to rewrite' is appropriate. Besides, rewriting original research would logically result in the same original research, simply worded differently. I think you meant I should source it, and that I have tried. the_undertow talk 04:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree that they do show OR, but if you're concerned about them, feel free to rewrite. FrozenPurpleCube 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Synthesized original research. Very weak sourcing. — MichaelLinnear 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Speculative cruft. Tayquan hollaMy work 08:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (edit conflict) Here are some sources that might help. I found these on Factiva and Lexis-Nexis. I think it's painfully obvious that this was a popular rumor, at least at some point.
- "Call them the Phantom Movies. During the prerelease hullabaloo for "The Empire Strikes Back" in 1980, George Lucas suggested that the Luke Skywalker saga would not be complete after three films, or even six films. He spoke of intentions to make "Star Wars" a nine-installment franchise. It was widely reported in print throughout the 1980s that he would create two follow-up trilogies, one going back in time to explore Darth Vader's roots and another turning the clock ahead to revisit the further adventures of his heroic son Luke Skywalker. Yet it looks like that third set of films has vanished from the radar like a starship locked into lightspeed. According to Lucas, the new Jedi epic "Revenge of the Sith," is the swan song for the series. He believes the third prequel, which follows Anakin Skywalker's devolution into Darth Vader, provides the closure fans seek." (Lisa Rose, "Six is enough - Or is it? Lucas denies ever planning 9 episodes," Star-Ledger, 20 May 2005)
- "After Star Wars took the world by storm in 1977, Lucas made it known he had enough material for nine films -- a trilogy of trilogies, as it were. One would take place before the 1977 film and would tell the story of Ben Kenobi and Luke's father; the other, set after the middle trilogy, would show how Luke governed the universe. By the time The Empire Strikes Back appeared in 1980, this had become the conventional wisdom. The wrinkle here is that other people who worked with Lucas haven't always adhered to the same line. In 1980, Gary Kurtz (original producer of Star Wars), told Starlog magazine he and Lucas had outlines for 12 films. But if you believe what Lucas says now, a sixology was in the cards all along." (Dan Brown, "Busting the myths of Star Wars," Ottawa Citizen, 14 May 2005, F1.)
- "He began writing the story in 1971, and the first movie appeared in 1977. Lucas didn't write a draft of the vague story that would follow Episode VI, even though hardcore fans have clung to the idea that the series would eventually become nine films." (Bruce Kirkland, "By George, He's Done: 34 Years, Six Movies, One Dream Fulfilled", The Toronto Sun, 6 May 2005, E6.)
- "The original films, as every fan knows, are "Episode IV: A New Hope," Episode V and Episode VI, the middle third of a once-projected nine-film epic. Lucas doesn't mention any plans for a final three films." (Gerry Putzer, "The Force is Finally With Us," New York Daily News, 19 September 2004, 22.)
- "George Lucas is said to have always had a nine-film saga in mind, with the three already made in the chronological middle. But like many things about the 'Star Wars' universe, that matter is somewhat shrouded in legend. 'After the first film came out and it was a giant hit, I figured I could do three films of the backstory,' says Lucas, who plans to start shooting the fourth 'Star Wars' movie in England this fall. 'Then everybody started asking about a sequel. But I don't have any stories on that one. The only notion I've got is, wouldn't it be fun to have all the actors come back when they're 60 or 70 years old?' (Bob Strauss, "Lucas looks backward from "Star Wars'", Tampa Tribune, 5 February 1997, 5.)
- "Star Wars had its world premiere yesterday, four days before its official May 19 opening. What the tout de Cannes saw was the middle episode of a six-movie collection that Lucas called the story of Darth Vader, the black-hooded villain. "It's the tragedy of Darth Vader," he said. "It starts when he's nine years old and it ends when he dies, and there really isn't any more story."That is to say, media reports of a nine-film series were just misquotes, according to Lucas." (Jay Stone, "'Just being here is an honour,' Lucas says: Star Wars director humble as new movie has world premiere at film fest in France," Ottawa Citizen, 16 May 2005, D1.) Zagalejo 09:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we know Lucas was originally thinking of a nine-story series. There are sources to support that. It's just that there's nothing more to say than that, and there's certainly not enough to warrant an article. - Chardish 13:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC
- This is mainly in response to an above comment, which says that "rumored film trilogy" is OR. Zagalejo 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You can look at it as OR or weasel words. Who says its rumor? Fans? What fans? How many fans? I can put a rumor in a forum too, and atleast two of those "sources" are from fan sites. Official fan sites or unofficial fan sites, they aren't not reliable per Wikipedia:Attribution. For OR, you should ask yourself, who said what? If Lucas says "oh yeah, I originally had 12 stories", and you take that to mean "I plan to make the rest", that's original research. This is why Wikipedia is not a rumormill. Wikipedia is about verifiability. Yes, you can verify a "rumor" by placing a source that concurs with your "rumor", but trying to pass it off like it's some nation wide rumor by connecting interviews that are 30 years old is misrepresentative. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of the best explanations of WP:CRYSTAL I've ever seen. - Chardish 14:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not following.... I've presented several reliable third-party sources which explicitly say that there was a widespread rumor about a sequel trilogy. The quotes above are about the rumors themselves; they are not the comments from Lucas that fueled the rumors, and they are not comments from "fanboys" speculating about episodes 7-9. (These quotes are just the tip of the iceberg, by the way. They are just a small sample of articles I found using a single search term. I could keep going forever.)
- You can look at it as OR or weasel words. Who says its rumor? Fans? What fans? How many fans? I can put a rumor in a forum too, and atleast two of those "sources" are from fan sites. Official fan sites or unofficial fan sites, they aren't not reliable per Wikipedia:Attribution. For OR, you should ask yourself, who said what? If Lucas says "oh yeah, I originally had 12 stories", and you take that to mean "I plan to make the rest", that's original research. This is why Wikipedia is not a rumormill. Wikipedia is about verifiability. Yes, you can verify a "rumor" by placing a source that concurs with your "rumor", but trying to pass it off like it's some nation wide rumor by connecting interviews that are 30 years old is misrepresentative. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is mainly in response to an above comment, which says that "rumored film trilogy" is OR. Zagalejo 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I do agree that the present article has problems, but those are mainly clean-up issues. At AFD, we're supposed to vote on the subject's potential as an encyclopedia article (with the exception of copyright issues, perhaps). And I do agree that we could write a good three paragraphs or more about the origins of the rumor, its persistence over the years, and the recent denials of this rumor. There's a lot more to say about this than, say, Love's Labour's Won, a Shakespeare play that may not have even existed, and I can't imagine that article getting deleted.Zagalejo 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you may need to reread AfD. There is not "voting" on AfD, they are meant to discuss an article. If you simply come to AfDs to go "delete" or "keep", then you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and your "votes" are probably being ignored anyway. As for what this article is. If you admit that the article is not but the "idea" of a trilogy then again, why is this its own article? You can sum up the "idea" of a trilogy on Star Wars. It isn't that hard. I don't know how many future film articles you've worked on, but there is a reason we don't allow speculation on those articles as well. Yes, it is speculation. Whether or not you want to masquerade it as just an "idea" of a trilogy, the point is that it's an "idea" the "speculates" on the future of the series. The "idea" is not definitive in any direction, and thus it's misrepresentative of what is actually happening. Fluffing a page with tons of he said she said sources, that do nothing but repeat what everying has said before (which is "yes there were other stories, but no we don't plan to make them) is not only unencyclopedic, but it's redundant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Vote" was a careless word choice. I know that we aren't voting here. And that's irrelevant, anyway.
- I imagine this article as, potentially, explaining where the rumors for the sequel trilogy originated and then describing what Lucas has said about them. Basically, it should focus on the history of the rumor, as a rumor, rather than an attempt to describe what would have appeared in the future episodes. My sources do show that the rumor was in the air during the late 1970s and 1980s; Lucas did not clearly say, from the start, that he was limiting himself to six episodes. I stand by my conviction that this is a notable topic, and, if properly treated, it could be interesting and helpful for people who had heard the rumor at some point in the past. Zagalejo 16:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there are already reliable independent sources focusing on the history of the rumor, it's still either original research by synthesis, or it's a collection of quotes with no purpose. - Chardish 16:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the Lisa Rose article I quoted from above is one source that does map it all out. There's a lot more to it than what I posted, although I haven't found it available for free online, and I don't think I should copy and paste the whole thing. (If you have access to a good library, you can pull it up on Factiva.) There's also this, from about.com - would that count? Zagalejo 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there are already reliable independent sources focusing on the history of the rumor, it's still either original research by synthesis, or it's a collection of quotes with no purpose. - Chardish 16:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you may need to reread AfD. There is not "voting" on AfD, they are meant to discuss an article. If you simply come to AfDs to go "delete" or "keep", then you are doing it for the wrong reasons, and your "votes" are probably being ignored anyway. As for what this article is. If you admit that the article is not but the "idea" of a trilogy then again, why is this its own article? You can sum up the "idea" of a trilogy on Star Wars. It isn't that hard. I don't know how many future film articles you've worked on, but there is a reason we don't allow speculation on those articles as well. Yes, it is speculation. Whether or not you want to masquerade it as just an "idea" of a trilogy, the point is that it's an "idea" the "speculates" on the future of the series. The "idea" is not definitive in any direction, and thus it's misrepresentative of what is actually happening. Fluffing a page with tons of he said she said sources, that do nothing but repeat what everying has said before (which is "yes there were other stories, but no we don't plan to make them) is not only unencyclopedic, but it's redundant. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If *we* take it to mean "I plan to make the rest" it's OR. If somebody else takes it to mean that, and report it in a major newspaper...it's not our OR. Argue all you want about whether or not their sources are good, it's somebody else reporting it first. See the difference? FrozenPurpleCube 16:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- His point is that this falls under a kind of original research called synthesis. Basically, the construction of this article consists of taking Quote A, finding Quote B in another part of the timeline, and bringing them together into the "argument" that a sequel trilogy was on the table at any given time. Nothing's wrong with attributable quotes when they stand alone, but when they're stitched together to make a basis for this sequel trilogy, despite the fact that Lucas has clearly, clearly stated (as emphasized by further information shown above) that the trilogy was not truly ever in development. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't have to make the argument that Lucas planned to make the trilogy. We could rewrite it by simply presenting everything that has been
saidreported about the sequels over the years, without trying to make any conclusions. Zagalejo 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]- But that is basically insubstantial for an article. Hence my vote to merge. There is no real-world context for this article; it is inappropriately represented as a widespread phenomenon where it is only a small and unrealized consideration in the production history of Star Wars franchises. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but what synthesis? Let's see, this article is about the subject of Sequels to Star Wars. Several sources clearly indicate they are talking about the subject of sequels to Star Wars. Collecting them together isn't OR or OR through synthesis. It's well, making a comprehensive article. BTW, I wouldn't object to a merge myself, but I do feel coverage is appropriate.FrozenPurpleCube 16:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's existence is the synthesis itself. It's making an actual subject out of what's been mentioned offhand in interviews. Nothing has been followed up, based on the information that this article has given. I'm not for deleting references of the mentioned possibility the sequel trilogy, I'm for deleting this article in general with the references placed elsewhere in a more succinct manner. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be more inclined to believe that if there weren't articles actually written primarily about the subject. A one-off interview question? I'll concur, it's not enough to base an article on. But with these multiple articles written about the subject? That changes things. FrozenPurpleCube 17:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's existence is the synthesis itself. It's making an actual subject out of what's been mentioned offhand in interviews. Nothing has been followed up, based on the information that this article has given. I'm not for deleting references of the mentioned possibility the sequel trilogy, I'm for deleting this article in general with the references placed elsewhere in a more succinct manner. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn't have to make the argument that Lucas planned to make the trilogy. We could rewrite it by simply presenting everything that has been
- His point is that this falls under a kind of original research called synthesis. Basically, the construction of this article consists of taking Quote A, finding Quote B in another part of the timeline, and bringing them together into the "argument" that a sequel trilogy was on the table at any given time. Nothing's wrong with attributable quotes when they stand alone, but when they're stitched together to make a basis for this sequel trilogy, despite the fact that Lucas has clearly, clearly stated (as emphasized by further information shown above) that the trilogy was not truly ever in development. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I do agree that the present article has problems, but those are mainly clean-up issues. At AFD, we're supposed to vote on the subject's potential as an encyclopedia article (with the exception of copyright issues, perhaps). And I do agree that we could write a good three paragraphs or more about the origins of the rumor, its persistence over the years, and the recent denials of this rumor. There's a lot more to say about this than, say, Love's Labour's Won, a Shakespeare play that may not have even existed, and I can't imagine that article getting deleted.Zagalejo 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explaining where the rumors originated? If they didn't originate from Lucas then it doesn't matter. I don't care if TIME magazine went on a rumor trail and began talking about a potential for the franchise, that's irrelevant to the person that OWNS the franchise. Anything that occurs beyond Lucas has no bearing on the topic of another trilogy. 20th Century Fox could say something about them, but they don't own the films, Lucas does. If you summed up the article to just what Lucas has stated, that makes it maybe a paragraph's worth of info. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you here, but only partially. If 20th Century Fox says something about them, that is worth reporting. If multiple reliable sources report on rumors of their production, that is worth reporting. But this article isn't reporting on rumors of production (or about any "films" at all, in the sense that we think about them.) It's reporting on a past idea for the films - a path that was not taken. It's not rumors, it's speculation. The synthesis here is that there is some "unfilmed trilogy" out there that's waiting to be produced, which, regardless of whether it's true or not, is still OR synthesis. In fact, anything other than simply stating "there once was the idea to have nine movies" is speculation. The problem with the article is that everything worth salvaging from it can be whittled down to two or three sourced sentences in the Star Wars article. - Chardish 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we kind of agree on the same thing, but for different reasons. If 20th Century mentions the films, it may be ok to mention that briefly in a passage, but in the end they have no say so because they just distribute the films, and Lucas owns all the rights. Without him, there are no films, and no accurate speculation for any other films. I totally agree about what is worth salvaging in the article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with you here, but only partially. If 20th Century Fox says something about them, that is worth reporting. If multiple reliable sources report on rumors of their production, that is worth reporting. But this article isn't reporting on rumors of production (or about any "films" at all, in the sense that we think about them.) It's reporting on a past idea for the films - a path that was not taken. It's not rumors, it's speculation. The synthesis here is that there is some "unfilmed trilogy" out there that's waiting to be produced, which, regardless of whether it's true or not, is still OR synthesis. In fact, anything other than simply stating "there once was the idea to have nine movies" is speculation. The problem with the article is that everything worth salvaging from it can be whittled down to two or three sourced sentences in the Star Wars article. - Chardish 17:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, speculation. >Radiant< 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Trevor GH5 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources referenced in the body, rumor mill. Adding a link section and calling it "references" isn't the same. Milto LOL pia 18:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All the references do exist. For example, you can find the Time articles at the magazine's online archive. Lack of sources is not, in itself, a reason to delete an article. It's a reason to add sources. We're discussing the topic's potential, not the current state of the article.
- That said, I'd like to emphasize, in case it has been lost in the shuffle, that I've found two reasonably long third-party articles that describe the history of the "sequel trilogy rumor" as a cultural meme (to use Craig Butz's phrase). The development of the rumor over time has been the primary subject of at least two articles, and likely a few more if we look through some sci-fi publications. Zagalejo 18:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the TIMES sources again, because I haven't seen them load once. All 3 come up with an error. They are all dead links. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these work? [11], [12], [13]. (I'm not sure how the present article is using the middle link, but the two quotes cited in the article are real.) Zagalejo 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those all work, but they do nothing but substantiate the belief that he was going to make 10 films at the time of the original trilogy. Cut to 30 years later, he says he won't make any more. Anything that happens in between is irrelevant, because he never took steps to make the rest (minus the prequel trilogy). This is information for the Star Wars page, not its own article. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these work? [11], [12], [13]. (I'm not sure how the present article is using the middle link, but the two quotes cited in the article are real.) Zagalejo 19:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the TIMES sources again, because I haven't seen them load once. All 3 come up with an error. They are all dead links. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 18:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should read this entire page and see what the article is actually supposed to be representing. But to be clear, you can be crystal balling and still cite sources. If you sources say "we'd like to make these films", instead of "we are going to start making these films on April 5, 2008", then it's still crystal balling. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - perhaps if some more original research is inserted, I'll change to delete. But for the moment, I'm a weak keeper-K@ngiemeep! 10:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Needs some work, but I think it just about warrants a place. KingStrato 11:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lead says it all. We don't include articles about rumors of things that may or may not happen. We document real life events. And taking several random quotes and putting them together and speculating on their meaning is not what is meant by meaningful referenced research. This could all be boiled down and merged into the main Star Wars article by saying, "There has been some fan speculation on a posible trilogy following the six film series" with a reference to one news article about said speculation. This does not belong here; try the Wookiepedia fork. —M (talk • contribs) 17:38, 8 May 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.