Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection

: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 delete. Consensus is to DELETE as an independent topic, although some aspects may be merged into other articles. Beware of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and WP:FANCRUFT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

=[[Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection]]=

:{{la|Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Star_Wars_and_Indiana_Jones_connection Stats])

:({{Find sources|Star Wars and Indiana Jones connection}})

WP:FANCRUFT that totally fails WP:NOTE. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Revised position due to overhaul: Merge - article still seems a bit WP:OR. While individual bits are properly source, the existence of the article still suggests a meaningful connection that only the Gorden source begins to support. WP:GNG requires sources, plural, indicating significant coverage. The easter eggs and non-canon material is properly source to mention that the Easter eggs and non-canonical nods exist, but those no more carry this article than Judge Dredd vs. Aliens and Spaceballs suggest meaningful connections between those franchises and Prometheus (film). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fancruft that isn't useful or notable to anyone but fans of either movie. Lugia2453 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

::And not even all of them *raises hand*. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. per WP:FANCRUFT.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Fancruft = WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Might be nice if people expressed a policy based argument than merely a personal preference. - jc37 23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • :Fancruft may equal "I don't like it," or may (as is stated above) mean "totally fails WP:NOTE." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ::For the most part, outside of articles on people (for various reasons), notability is pretty much IDONTLIKEIT as well. Why should we care whether information is in a list or a "stand alone page". It's merely a difference in presentation, which is essentially a subjective preference. Hence: IDONTLIKEIT... - jc37 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • :Comment Actually, I like it. I'm a Starwars fan. It's very interesting as trivia, but this sort of thing has no place in an encyclopedia. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ::Who says? Why does one kind of information have a "place in an encyclopedia", and another piece of information doesn't? How is that not subjective selection? I ask this, being rather well versed in WP:NOT. So please explain how this is not subjective. - jc37 00:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • :::{{ec}}I'm a Star Wars fan, too (my earliest memory is Darth Vader force choking one of the Grand Moffs after he mocked the Force). This material has no real sources, makes rather serious assumptions about what could as easily be homages and in-jokes, and generally is of no importance outside of the amusement of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones fandoms. Also, WP:NOTE is a policy on what is or is not included, that rather specifically requires multiple reliable sources (preferably academic or journalistic) about the article's subject (not just specific parts). This only cites an episode of the Clone Wars (WP:PRIMARY source original research) and a Twitter account. There is no defending this article. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ::::Hey, don't look now, but you may have just made a "policy-based argument" : ) - jc37 00:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • :::::Hey, don't look now, but I made it yesterday. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ::::::Not that I see, per my comments above. Sometimes it's clear enough to merely vaguely wave at some policy page. I've done it myself. But sometimes one should explain beyond subjective preference. And asserting that something doesn't meet WP:NOTE simply needs to be explained. - jc37 00:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

{{od}}

A cursory glance at the page, particularly the only two "references," would have established how NOTE was not met, and would have been more cooperative and polite than badgering everyone to spell out what is obvious to anyone who actually looks at the article beyond the title. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

:Really? I look at this page before I edited here and all I see is: per FANCRUFT, per NOTE, per nom, per NOTUSEFUL, per FANCRUFT. I don't see any explanations. And as NOTE is subjective, it needs explaining. Read the very first line of NOTE. It's a test. So one needs to explain how it applies in a particular situation.

:As for "badgering", this is a discussion page. You should probably expect discussion. - jc37 00:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

::"A cursory glance at the page" meant "the article" (indicated by the mention of references immediately after), not this page. NOTE requires reliable secondary sources, and anyone who glances at the article can see that it lacks those completely. I expected informed discussion, as in "this is my position based on my examination of the article and understanding of policies and guidelines," not "I didn't bother to engage in common courtesy of actually looking at the article and will not bother to stick my head out the window, so what do you mean when you say the sky is blue?" Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

:::The applicability of NOTE still would need explaining.

:::And incidentally, as for me, I have proof that I looked over the article: My delete comments directly below.

:::Anyway, perhaps in the future you'll "bother" (to use your word) to explain the applicability of NOTE to a particular situation. I have hopes anyway. - jc37 00:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:OR. The wiki that this was copied from [http://indianajones.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars], also doesn't list references for this. Unless/until at least some of these are referenced and this concept is fleshed out more than merely one film series having one or more homages to another, it should be deleted. - jc37 23:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is unreferenced, but this is widely discussed in reliable sources.[http://titanmagazines.com/t/star-wars-insider/us/137/][http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=B2EEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA163&dq=Star%20Wars%20references%20in%20Indiana%20Jones%20films&pg=PA163#v=onepage&q=Star%20Wars%20references%20in%20Indiana%20Jones%20films&f=false][http://www.destinationhollywood.com/movies/indianajones/feature_starwars.shtml][http://www.flavorwire.com/275827/9-cleverly-hidden-star-wars-references-you-never-noticed/4#content_top][http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/05/frank-digiaco-4] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

::Those sources aren't exactly "independent of the subject", are they? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge into the respective Star Wars and Indiana Jones articles. As a fan, I love this kind of stuff, but I don't think it's notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

::I would support that for material that is reliably sourced and not original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete - but merge the material into other articles per Fortdj33. --Noleander (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep: On the face of it, the topic appears trivial, especially with the way the article is structured. However, I think attention should be paid to Colapeninsula's sources. Star Wars Insider, Orange Coast, and Vanity Fair have commented on the relationship. Looking at Google Books results, I see that The Hidden Magic of Walt Disney World makes a connection. It looks like The Complete Spielberg makes connections: "Star Wars' lovable droid duo R2-D2 and C-3PO are carved into stone walls of the Well of Souls as hieroglyphics. The biplane that spirits Indy away from the tribesman reads OB-3PO." I would recommend re-structuring the article so similar items are grouped together. For example, everything related to "I have a bad feeling about this" could go into one paragraph. I also think that connections should be noted by secondary sources as a threshold for inclusion, so we can say that so-and-so connection has been highlighted elsewhere. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • :I also wanted to note that Empire of Dreams: The Science Fiction and Fantasy Films of Steven Spielberg makes a few good comparisons between the Indiana Jones and Star Wars films. Perhaps this article could expand its scope to include themes rather than just Easter eggs. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ::If there are verifiable reliable sources, then I would support keeping this. - jc37 00:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sourcing Erik has found. Needs work, obviously, but that seems a pretty compelling argument that the problems can be fixed through regular editing, rather than deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The worst collection of unreferenced trivia copied from a fansite. Not a viable encyclopedia entry. Anything sourced and worth keeping can be merged in to the respctive articles without any loss of utility. --MarchOrDie (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I confirm that I still think deletion is the best course of action, even though the aricle was improved by trimming out the worst cruft. --MarchOrDie (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • DeleteMerge. Not notable as a topic. Merge as per Fortdj33. 1292simon (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have given this article an overhaul by including a "Shared themes" section and removing the majority of the references, very few of which I could find reliable sources. I'm sure that the references are valid, but I think it's fair to say that they are too indiscriminate if reliable sources have not highlighted them. I think there is a stronger case to keep now, so please take a look at the current draft. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral, tending delete - I'd be in favour of retaining this if and only if at least two independent reliable sources could be found which mentioned the connection directly. There's plenty to put into such an article, but without at least some sources to back up its main theme, it's essentially a coatrack for Lucasfilm trivia. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • :I just wanted to make sure, did you review the article after my recent overhaul? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • ::I've only seen it after the overhaul. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • :::No problem. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, and edging towards original synthesis. Claritas § 16:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have re-examined the newly redone version. Truth be told, I liked the article better before. What I think should happen here is this: 1.) Add a section to the Star Wars article called "Indiana Jones" and add all the references. 2.) Do the same with the Indiana Jones article by adding a Star wars section. then finally 3.) Delete this article. There simply isn't a stand-alone article here. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep the new, better version. It appears to be a useful article now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.