Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:08, 18 April 2009

Star Wars sequel trilogy

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Misplaced Pages contributors. Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy
• Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (5th nomination)

• Articles for deletion/Star Wars speculation

• Articles for deletion/Sequel Trilogy (Star Wars)

Star Wars sequel trilogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N, with slight failings of WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR and WP:FANCRUFT. This is an article about a set of films that are never going to be made and the article (even the opening paragraph) confirms this - "Lucasfilm and George Lucas have for many years denied plans of making a sequel trilogy, insisting that Star Wars was meant to be a six-part series...currently, there are no firm plans to produce such films". Merge any worthy content to Star Wars, but otherwise this is worthless. Even though Lucas has touched upon the issue, it is trivial. Dalejenkins | 14:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Selective merge and redirect to Star Wars. --EEMIV (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS. In the words of the article itself, "Lucasfilm and George Lucas have for many years denied plans of making a sequel trilogy, insisting that Star Wars was meant to be a six-part series". Whether the article has 14 citations or 400, all it can ever add up to is vague speculation stitched together from here and there. Heck, half of the article seems to be quotes from George Lucas himself insisting that there is no third trilogy. There's no subject here to write about. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Crystal doesn't apply, since it's all verifiable, as far as I can tell. If it's merged, it can't be deleted per the GFDL. Notability is established by the references. It's disinterestedly written, so OR doesn't apply. TRIVIA doesn't apply because there is an obvious thread tying this information together, as well as its been filtered by the sources. FANCRUFT is an essay and in the eye of the beholder, and a number of people find the term offensive, so you may want to avoid using it as a reason to delete in the future. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Peregrine_Fisher. Article is more than adequately sources with many reliable citations. While Lucasfilm's "official story" on the sequel films *now* is that they were never planned, this is historically inaccurate, based on relevant cites over the years. And, as shown by the wealth of information here, this would overwhelm the main Star Wars article, and a separate topic is justified. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Selective merge per EEMIV.--Iner22 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is a valid topic with reliable sources establishing notability. OR (if any) can be dealt with editing. J 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Do you guys realise this is an article about something that does not but one day might exist? That is not deserving of an entire article for itself, no matter how many references it has. I mean, WP:CRYSTAL says we have to delete an article about a film that exists but has not been released, yet here is an article about a film that does not exist nor is anybody planning to start making it. In conclusion, the logical decision is to merge it into the article about the film series. The Dominator_Edits 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep From WP:CRYSTAL: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It has enough references to pass both that, and WP:N. Even if it does have bits of trivia, it's sourced enough to not fail WP:OR, and even if it were WP:FANCRUFT, it's not unreasonable to say that the Star Wars fan base is big enough that (contrary to the essay), content is of importance to a large population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Update: I should probably point out that the main reason I'm opposed to just merging to Star Wars is because that article is too long as it is, and leaving this one separate makes it easier than merging and having to trim/fork off something else. KhalfaniKhaldun 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is claiming the exact opposite. It says that NO progress has been made on making another Star Wars trilogy. The Dominator_Edits 18:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to the quote from WP:CRYSTAL, but I really don't see how no progress is contrary to that statement. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

We have to exercise some logic here. I mean, there could be a ton of references indicating that there is no chance in hell a sequel to Citizen Kane will ever be made. Yet, we're not going to make an article called "Why Citizen Kane Does Not Have a Sequel" are we? I'm not advocating the deletion of this information completely, but there is no need to have a separate article about something that does not, nor ever will, exist no matter how many nerds have dreamed it should. The Dominator_Edits 05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is true, but at the same time the whole reason this is a notable topic is because according to multiple reliable sources at one point in time Lucas had expressed a desire to create a sequel trilogy. I think the fact that it is clear that at one point in time there were to be more movies made, and for that plan to completely disappear and furthermore be denied by the very people who planned it in the first place is the reason why there is significantly more diverse coverage in reliable sources than just a million sources that all say it will never happen, thus making it Misplaced Pages-worthy (IMO). Also, see my updated comment about merging the content above. KhalfaniKhaldun 05:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Dalejenkins. No such films exist or will exist. At most it deserves a small mention in the main Star Wars article. Not notable enough to warrant a article on what at one point was a possible trilogy but never happened. TJ Spyke 19:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason at all why a proposed project would actually have to be made to be notable. There are well-documented discussions about the possibility that such films would be made, and therefore there is no reason we cannot document the discussions. The article meets all relevant standards: it passes all of WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR and WP:NOT. As WP:CRYSTAL clearly states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." That sentence could have been written with this article in mind. JulesH (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, given the huge notability of Star Wars as a franchise, any credible discussions of further films to be made in the series are clearly not "trivial" as the nominator suggests. These discussions were credible when they first came to light, and as notability is not temporary, that means they are not trivial now. JulesH (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above. During an earlier discussion, I found a few other sources that might be useful. This article, which originally came from the Star Ledger, was probably the best. (It's also available from Newsbank. Zagalejo^^^ 23:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That source is from an internet forum, so therefore fails WP:RS in a spectacular fashion. Dalejenkins | 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sppedy Keep Evidently notable and the nomination proposes a merger. I've often wondered myself what was happening about the final three episodes and expect that they will eventually come. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That argument is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Dalejenkins | 11:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• No. My essential point is that topic is notable. The rest is just a personal anecdote for general interest of the editors who must labour through this tiresome repeat nomination which is disruptive, per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

And which part of that has been broken exactly? Here is not the place to air your views I'm afraid - please read WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:NOT#BLOG. This AFD is far from distruptive, I sense the sour grapes of a Star Wars fan.... Dalejenkins | 11:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see: It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This was last nominated 4 years ago by a different nominator. What a silly statement. Dalejenkins | 11:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The article seems much improved since then while the arguments for deletion have not. What new fact have you brought to occasion this discussion? Anyway, I see that your nomination proposes merger and so this discussion should be speedily closed as an improper process for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The previous AFD came to no consensus, so the delete arguments still stand. It's also interesting to note that your keep arguments appear to be the same. Also, whereas myself and others who want the article deleted have stated their reasons in deep explination, you have bluntly said that the subject is notable and have not expanded on it. Remember that AFD is a debate, not a poll. Clearly, you have not read WP:SPEEDY to. Dalejenkins | 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The last AFD was 2 years ago, not 4 (). JulesH (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete There are lots of reliable sources about plenty of movies that are not going to be made. This seems like a non-topic, like Betamax in the 21st century. This could be blanked and merged instead of deleted, but I don't think there is much to salvage. If the movies are every made(sorry fans this is not going to happen) then is can be restored. Chillum 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Khalfani_khaldun. The article seems sufficiently referenced with reliable third party sources. Also (and even though I know someone's gonna throw WP:OTHERSTUFF up because of this) I find this little different from such unmade or cancelled films such as The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, The Alien, Godzilla vs. Frankenstein, or Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The main issue with your agrument is that all of the pieces that you point out were all actually produced or were in production, whereas the Star Wars sequel trilogy has never even been written or considered. For more detail:

• The Man Who Killed Don Quixote was temporarily cancelled, but is now in production again.
• The Alien was eventually adapted into a TV series
• Godzilla vs. Frankenstein probably should be merged with King Kong vs. Godzilla, I'll give you that, but again, it was actually written.
• Doc Savage: The Arch Enemy of Evil seems to have whole books or whole segments of books written on the issue.

The Star Wars sequels have nothing in common with any of these and, despite the fact that you mention it, WP:OTHERSTUFF still applies, so I shouldn't have really wasted my time... Dalejenkins | 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Still, the speculation about a Star Wars sequel trilogy has received a lot of coverage in its own right. And many people (not just Star Wars fanatics) are curious about this topic. The article routinely gets a couple hundred views each day: . Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Whether 3 or 3million people view this daily, it still fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TRIVIA. And Misplaced Pages is not a fan site, this content belongs there, not on an academic encyclopedia. Dalejenkins | 21:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1) This isn't "unverifiable speculation". The article makes no claims about the future. It simply summarizes what has been said about the possibility of a sequel trilogy. 2) What's trivial to you is useful information to others. It's all subjective. 3) There are several academic journals devoted to pop culture, and at least a few college courses about Star Wars, specifically. Pop culture has a place here. And what the heck, it's not like you're writing articles about T.S. Eliot or Soren Kierkegaard. Most of your articles are about British reality TV shows. Zagalejo^^^ 21:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even going to acknowledge that comment with a response. WP:ATTACK. Says it all really. Dalejenkins | 22:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just trying to stick up for the people who spent time working on this article. You're saying that their contributions don't belong in an "academic encyclopedia", but I don't see many contributions from you that would, either. (And I'm not saying that your article work should be deleted. If brought to AFD, I'd probably !vote to keep it. I just don't think you're in a position to talk about "academic standards".) Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Fiction and the arts)
• AfD debates