Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged inconsistencies 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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars

While I'm hesitant to nominate an article for deletion when it has received more edits than many Featured Articles, I feel I have no choice in this case. It's completely original research, with the 'question and answer' format just an excuse to pack even more fancruft into an already unencyclopaedic article. The title itself is a weasel word; alleged by who? The article never says. This article is flagged with just about every warning template already, but the truth is that it's fundamentally a bad idea for an article. There may be some small amount of information that warrants merging into Star Wars, but consensus should first be established on the worthiness or otherwise of the article itself. Soo 13:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the precedent set by the deletion of a similar article related to Star Trek: Enterprise. 23skidoo 14:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "If article A then article B" is a bad argument. Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems (AfD discussion) (more AFD discussion) (yet more AFD discussion) was challenged for being original research. This article should be looked at on the same basis, not because deleting it would be "fair". It is quite possible for a discussion of inconsistencies in one fictional universe to be original research, whilst a discusson of inconsistencies in another fictional universe to not be. It all depends from what sources exist. Uncle G
Delete Fails WP:NPOV, Smacks of WP:OR, and falls short of WP:V. I did get a very good laugh out a post someone made, stating that in space ...you'd expand and eventually explode, because your skin and organs aren't tough enough to keep their shape under no pressure at all. Also, you'd freeze to death within minutes, as it's lower than -100C out there --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, then it's definitely a violation of WP:OR or WP:RS, since neither of the above assertions are. WilyD 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 16:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Recury 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as 100% unrefererenced OR. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 21:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced original research. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of this is sourcable (heck whole books have been written on this), so OR and RS are not issues. Someone just needs to go through and source it. JoshuaZ 01:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is deleted, any information not already in the Wookiepedia article on the same subject should be copied there first. I haven't done a point-by-point comparison of the two, but my impression is that while the Wookiepedia article covers more issues, it doesn't have as much in-depth information about the ones listed here. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 01:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't thought of that, good idea. Soo 09:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shovel and delete ... as above. This belongs in Wookiepedia. Ronabop 03:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely WP:OR. The ones that are worthwhile are already mentioned elsewhere, and others ("Vader knowing about Tatooine" stands out as an example) aren't exactly major continuity issues and probably shouldn't be here at all. BryanG^(talk) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maclaine 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i say keep it. i like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.153.188.49 (talk • contribs)
- Fourth edit from this IP. Soo 16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete bad precedent although imdb has tons of this stuff. On balance, that's probably where it belongs, not here. (more than 4th edit from me) Carlossuarez46 06:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There has been some research, from books, et cetera. I do not want to do this research. I am glad the writer did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.232.196 (talk • contribs)

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.