Forum:TC:Willow (second nomination)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Willow (second nomination)

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. jSarek 23:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Willow (talk - history - links - logs)

This article has NOTHING to do with Star Wars. It is an unconnected film that was joked about being included. If this gets an article, then I'm gonna make a joke that [| this] gets included.—Unsigned comment by 65.182.254.223 (talk • contribs)

  • For the record, this is a renomination. The previous discussion, for which the result was keep, can be found here. I would also like to correct the above poster: the article in question is certainly not without connection to Star Wars. This should be clear to anyone who actually reads the article. -- Ozzel 19:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Keep the individual articles for the stuff in the databank joke. Delete the utterly pointless article on the film, which itself has nothing whatsoever to do with Star Wars. Havac 22:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Maybe make an article about StarWars.com April Fools day jokes and consolidate the relevant into into them. We really have no need for this whatsoever. Thefourdotelipsis 23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • There's already a little coverage of that on our April 1 page. -LtNOWIS 10:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep. And that's pretty much all we need on the topic. But I'd strongly recommend either an April Fools Day page or a generic page of Lucasfilm productions, since we seem to be obsessed with them around here. (see American Graffiti and THX 1138. I'm surprised we're missing Raiders of the Lost Ark and Tucker: The Man and His Dream, personally. We should probably throw in Howard the Duck in there somewhere down the line as well...) Thefourdotelipsis 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. Per Fourdot. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. I've long wondered why something like what 4dot has suggested, hasn't been done before with this article, and others—for example, Shadow Moon, Shadow Dawn, and Shadow Star. I don't mind them being mentioned in a consolidated article of some kind, but I see no point in having these types of articles in general. Greyman Jan.png (Talk) 23:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Delete, even if the opening argument is technically a WP:POINT violation.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 02:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per 4dot. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Graestan(Talk) 15:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Delete. While I don't dispute that the update made a connection between the universes of Star Wars and Willow, its facetious and non-canonical nature makes it a rather thin and peripheral connection between the two universes at best. It does not justify articles about Willow and its spinoff literature within a Star Wars wiki. The furthest that I think we should go with this is an article discussing the update itself along with additional articles regarding the "in-universe" subjects that it covers. Muuuuuurgh 01:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Look at the Star Wars Tales stories/articles though. Many of them are even less serious and equally non-canonical. The reason they are included in the wiki is because they were published by a Lucasfilm division. It's the same with all the Willow stuff: it was published by a Lucasfilm division (well, the highest division, co-wrote and executive produced by Lucas himself and released under the Lucasfilm Ltd. banner), and has had six extensive databank articles written by Lucas Licensing employees about the world created by it and its sequel novels (which were also co-written by Lucas and published by Lucas Licensing). Joke or not, I don't see how the Willow stuff is any different than the Star Wars Tales stories or any other officially licensed, non-canon material. There is precedent, so why don't we follow that? Adamwankenobi 08:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • The key difference is the STAR WARS in the title. Thefourdotelipsis 11:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • StarWars.com Databank. :) Adamwankenobi 17:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • What's your point? We have articles on all the stuff that appeared in the Databank. Willow itself -- the actual subject of the article we're talking about -- has shit all to do with Star Wars. Havac 02:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Delete- changed vote because articles related to this article that do contain Star Wars material can be kept, and a wikipedia link to the movie could be used instead NighthawkLeader 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Delete, for all of the above reasons. -MPK 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Purge non-SW content

  1. This is really a sort of "keep" vote with an added recommendation for merging the six April Fool's Day Databank articles into Willow. —Silly Dan (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. This is valid as it has a few links to Star Wars, but the synopsis and casting information about the movie itself is irrelevant for this Wiki NighthawkLeader 09:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Keep. Joke or not, six articles in the Databank were written based on various elements from the film. And if that isn't enough, read the section on the film's numerous other connections to Star Wars. Adamwankenobi 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep (again) - the joke itself is Star Wars related, and notable at that. KEJ 21:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. As I said once before, "Any film that can generate six Star Wars databank entries, Star Wars or not, deserves an article." jSarek 02:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. After much consideration, I've decided that I think we should keep. -- Ozzel 02:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Keep article. Ban nominator. Ignore future idiotic VFDs. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    Idiotic? With all due respect, that's just your opinion. I don't see the point of threatening bans for legitimate use of the TC process. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Keep. Don't use swfanon links of any kind in future votes. Cull Tremayne 04:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per Culator. Unit 8311 14:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Sans comment. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 15:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Per Adamwankenobi. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 15:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Databank. Say it with me. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  12. Per Riff. --Squishy Vic (discussion) (contributions) 08:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

To Adamwan--

The fact that six articles were written in the databank proves nothing, as they were written for the purpose of furthering the now-over joke. Those connections are also irrelevant. I am sure I could find a thousand works of fiction with various references or similarities to Star Wars, but that does not mean they belong here.

2. Perhaps, but that is what a Wikipedia link is for.—Unsigned comment by 65.182.254.223 (talk • contribs)

  • I've moved the above comment into the Comments section in order to keep the voting section organized. -- Ozzel 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • To anon: Do any of these thousand works of fiction you speak of have any Databank articles written about them at StarWars.com? Adamwankenobi 22:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this a WP:POINT violation? I have not disrupted Wookieepedia.—Unsigned comment by 65.182.242.184  (talk • contribs)

  • Lobbying for us to add fanon if we keep Willow would be, if we seriously thought you'd do that. So, don't. 8) (Also, please make an account so we can keep track of who's who.) —Silly Dan (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I want to note that Lucas Licensing actually toyed with the idea of canonizing the Willow universe as part of the Star Wars universe. Adamwankenobi 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)