Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages in 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. MBisanz ^talk 12:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in Star Wars[edit]

Unreferenced for more than a year. No assertion of notability. Google Books search doesn't yield any significant treatment of languages, either specific ones or the clump as a whole. --EEMIV (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wow~~ Notability is not the big issue (I think the topic *may* be notable). It isn't a bad piece of prose. As a matter of fact, it would make a great webpage somewhere. Unfortunately, it's a very bad encyclopedia article as it very long and uncited, and so woven with original research that you would have to delete it and start over. There is only one source listed, a book. Either this is plagerized from it, or it is pure original research. And, it might even be 100% accurate, but it would very hard to verify and take a couple hundred cites. I can't possibly see how to do anything with this article as it is. Not sure what to do with it. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gah. I'm going to ask for comment from the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars. RayAYang (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wookieepedia (or appropriate Wiki project of one's choice), Merge a brief summary into the main Star Wars article and the individual articles of the races involved, Delete the rest. While fascinating, valuable information for those interested in Star Wars, there's nothing about this that would be more encyclopedically appropriate than, for instance, Computer parts used in the movie Brazil, Personalities of Pokemon or Swordfighting styles of all the extras in Braveheart. As with all those hypothetical articles, some mention of the content would be appropriate - even, perhaps, desired - for the main article, but a discourse of this magnitude is not needed. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, no matter how nifty, interesting, or even useful it may be. Even if the material can be sourced (and, given the trendiness and enormous mass-market appeal of the series, it's likely that whole volumes have in fact been written upon this subject), it does not de facto render the content appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopedia, any more so than the vast libraries of information about what to see in Italy would make Things to do when visiting Italy appropriate (see: WP:NOTTRAVEL). Summarized: Italy okay. Star Wars okay. Leaning Tower of Pisa, with mention of the fact that it is a popular tourist destination, okay. Ewok, with mention of the fact that Ewoks speak a pidgin of Tibetan, Nepali and various Mongolian languages, okay. Things to do when visiting Italy not okay. Languages in Star Wars not okay. Badger Drink (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, just to head this one off at the pass (one would hope): The reason I compare this to Things to do in Italy and not Italian is because Italian is a real language of actual consequence here in the real world. Star Wars, fortunately or unfortunately, is not, in fact, the real world. The languages within Star Wars are a lot more primitive than examples such as Klingon and Elvish, and hence are of a lot less real-world impact than the slight, but still consequential, nature of the above languages. Badger Drink (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an AfD case. Look, the worst outcome for the current content is going to be a "slight merge" and redirect into Star Wars or some related article. Any of that can be handled on talk pages. AfD is when you really want an article deleted. --Trovatore (talk) 09:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Unreferenced, in-universe original research should be deleted. There is no substantive content in this article -- to say nothing of it being unreferenced -- to merge anywhere. --EEMIV (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and no merge . Although I think that this would be a great essay for the Star Wars wiki, which isn't as rule laden as Wikipedia, it's still an essay. It's overly long and not that well-organized, but those fixable things are not the problem. What cannot be fixed is that, ultimately, this is a lot of observations made by a fan of the films and novels, original research in its purest form. The worst of it is drawing a conclusion about a fictional world from a filming detail: Obi Wan speaks with a British accent, not because Alec Guinness did, but because that's what some Jedi do. Luke and Han "have American accents" because that's how rebels talk, fortunately for Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford. "Spoken Galactic Basic is identical to spoken English", or at least it was a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. I'm not convinced that George Lucas was an all-knowing Creator in the Star Wars universe. Mandsford (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing from Wow to Delete I think Mandsford explains this perfectly. I was already leaning delete, but wanted to be sure I wasn't the only one who saw this as complete and utter OR. Transwiki is fine, but I am not sure that any kind of merge is appropriate. If a section on it was needed, it would be better to write from scratch. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article needs references. This is a very notable subject and a perfectly legitimate article. It already contains some good information, but needs clean-up and references. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously look at it, them image the number of cites it would take (ie:hundreds), and the amount of effort required to remove all the conclusions and other original research. This is one of those cases it would be easier to start over with, which is a valid reason to delete. The idea is cool enough, and this isn't a bad "essay", but just imagine yourself trying to source it. Really, try it. :) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 12:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this article is full of original research, has no sources and reads like an essay. There are places for unsubstantiated fan speculation. Wikipedia is not that place. Reyk _YO! 19:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The millions of Star Wars fans clearly demonstrate this subjects notability. And I think it's a prefectly appropriate entry for Wikipedia. The problem is that the text is unreferenced. As far as being original research, I don't know if that's true or not, but as there are lots of books on the subject, anyone who wants to is welcome to add references and better source the material. But I think it's a terrific subject. Just be glad there isn't an article on each and every language it contains. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article also has two sources/ references now. And as someone is working to improve it I think it would be unfortunate to delete it. It absolutely needs more inline citations and better referencing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but userfy is recommended. I've been invited to look at revisions, including a verifiable source, and I appreciate the invitation. I'm withdrawing my delete !vote because it's clear that there is an editor who is making an effort to improve this article, and is on the right track. We have to look at why this is an OR mess. The page was created in 2002, when Wikipedia was taking all comers, and standards for new articles were lower than they are now. It started with OR, and many editors threw in their own original research observations over the last six years. There is room for an article about the use of language in Star Wars and its progeny. All I need to say is "Yoda's syntax" and what I am talking about, most people know. Certainly, it's been written about, as the Google Books search demonstrates. Where someone is taking the tough job of trying to make a good article about a worthwhile topic, I'm in favor of a reprieve. However, I recommend a userfy, since I expect that this will take awhile and that the editor, like the rest of us, is doing this in his/her spare time. Save it to your hard drive now before the discussion closes. Mandsford (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with your keep, but userfying would limit who could work on the article. It's been posted to several places where it may draw interest from editors. I've made some edits and may make more. If you'd like, maybe an under constrcution tag would be appropriate?ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usefying does not at all limit who can edit it. I doubt anyone who'd be willing to userfy it would turn away help working on it. --EEMIV (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is sufficient material and potential resources for all of this. its not as if this series was ignored in published material. True, some of the people who have contributed to it have not paid attention to documentation. Just needs further work. There is no need to userify in order to work in an article--we only userify if the article is impossible to keep in mainspace. DGG (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do you believe all the original research can be removed and all the content cited properly? I'm sincerely curious as I respect your opinion. I am just not sure how this article can be verified in any meaningful way. As I said from the start, notability isn't the issue to me. It is interesting but how could I trust the accuracy of the information and know it isn't just someone's "take" on what they read (WP:OR)? I know we don't have a WP:DEADLINE, but can we get it to 51% in a reasonable period? Finally, can you take an article this large, only have two sources, yet call it "verified" for so many factual claims? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you my take on this (of course, I recognize that you may have been posing the question to Midnight or to DGG). Yes, I believe that most of the original research can be removed and the remaining content can be cited properly. I think that many of us believe that the topic was worthwhile, but that this particular essay about the topic was crap from start to finish; that someone could write a Wikipedia-standard article about the subject, but that it should be in the form of someone starting from scratch rather than trying to clean this article up. However, I can also see that there are Star Wars fans who are equally repulsed to see an amateurish article from some of their own, who want a high-standard article, and who can recall where they have seen discussions of the subject of language. There are sources out there, of course, because film-makers began to seek the advice of linguists in helping to keep the depiction of an alien culture consistent. It's more evident in the Star Trek franchise, where someone literally "made up" a detailed Klingon language with its own linguistic rules, and it turned into a cultural phenomenon. I conclude that (a) it's a legitimate subject (b) there are editors, like A-Nobody and others, who care about the integrity of both Wikipedia and descriptions of Star Wars; and (c) those editors will have printed sources to draw from. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually addressing DGG, but I certainly respect your opinion as well. I agree the general topic is notable, but usually I say delete and start over when they are this borked. In general, we agree that it is always preferable to fix an article than delete it. I will take it in faith that you and DGG are correct in that it can be converted into something at least "marginal" in short order, and chock up my hesitation (still) to a simple lack of imagination on my part. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sole reliable source is a brief mention in a travel book. No evidence of notability. HiDrNick! 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Demolish. This is a horrible article, and a textbook case of what sucks about in-universe articles (and listy merges). It's a patchwork of random Star Wars trivia from a variety of origins and contexts. That said, there's a fair bit of usable content here that belongs in a non-sucky article with a more coherent topic. This needs to go somewhere that isn't article space; project space or userspace would work. From there, the bits of useful content need to be parceled out into the articles that would benefit from them, and the rest consigned to a subpage's article history for GFDL purposes. For the purposes of establishing a consensus, feel free to interpret this as merge, userfy, or delete (it can simply be userfied after a delete), but not a keep-in-this-form. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has references, and article quality is no grounds for deletion. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying (that we should try to improve rather than delete); and the article you're looking at on November 11 is different than what was nominated on November 9. However, had this article not been nominated, I don't think that references would have been added. We should never become satisfied or complacent with bad quality, and poor quality should always be a ground for deletion. Mandsford (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changed from above, based on the fact that the subject matter is notable (no one is arguing against that), but the article as it was when the AFD started was fatally flawed. Because a number of trustworthy editors have made it clear they will start over and fix the article, this puts us in a position to keep and tag heavily. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I dispute the claim that the subject is notable. The two references offer citations to two trivial/passing references, and there's no evidence that "Star Wars languages" as a whole -- or even individually -- have been the subject of significant, third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "languages ""star wars"" gets 18 million hits. Plenty of people have written about it, so the concept is valid. The current article is junk, but that is an issue of wp:v. The 'subject matter' itself can easily be shown to be notable, ignoring the content. Narrowing down the search to just the nytimes found a couple of articles talking about language and star wars as well. What can't be sourced is the original research that is currently being deleted. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 17:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those "millions" of hits rapidly degenerate into fan sites, fora and Wookieepedia. A more focused Google Books search yields nary much else; the best that comes up are references to Star Wars terms and ideas impacting popular culture (e.g. "Star Wars"/SDI), but that's bantha fodder for other articles. --EEMIV (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A search for 'Bracelets "Star Wars"' also turns up many millions of equally random sites. Waving vaguely at poorly-formed search engine inquiries does little to help us write well-sourced articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the argument isnt the search results, its the references in the article. As far as referenced material goes, there's no real argument for not having everything sourceable on a topic like this. We can leave the fanfiction and pure speculation to the wikia, but I cant see on what basis one calls this insignificant.DGG (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that there are published guidebooks about the subject means it is worthy of being treated here. --Polaron | Talk 18:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/merge/delete per Badger Drink. As a single example of what would need fixing if this were to stay, consider the bit about the origins of characters' accents: we would need someone to cite Star Wars canonical sources for the "in-universe" facts, then cite real-world sources for the comparisons to actual ethnic accents, then justify the whole as being notable enough to cover in an article. There are many other similar flaws in this article. TheFeds 04:48, 14 November 2008 (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.