Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy

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 keep. The main issues here concern WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. However, a sourced article can legitimately be about events that have not happened. Also, much of the parts that read like original research have been cleaned up (see diff). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars sequel trilogy

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)[reply]

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

Selective merge and redirect to Star Wars. --EEMIV (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Selective merge per EEMIV.--Iner22 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a valid topic with reliable sources establishing notability. OR (if any) can be dealt with editing. J^mundo 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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^Talk_Edits 18:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Khalfani Khaldun 18:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Khalfani Khaldun 20:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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^Talk_Edits 05:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia-worthy (IMO). Also, see my updated comment about merging the content above. Khalfani Khaldun 05:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The last AFD was 2 years ago, not 4 ([1]). JulesH (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [2]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm just trying to stick up for the people who spent time working on this article. I'm not saying that your articles should be deleted. I'd probably !vote to keep them if they were brought to AFD. I was just commenting on your argument, which seemed unfair. Zagalejo^^^ 22:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also read WP:EFFORT. Dalejenkins | 22:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. This isn't a case of WP:CRYSTAL, it's a sufficiently referenced article on an extremely notable series. Even if they never exist, they're notable enough (and sourced well enough) to have an entry detailing them and why they're not actally being made. Dayewalker (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an exemplary case of what WP:CRYSTAL was designed to not discourage: the fact that Lucas has changed his stories plenty of times has reported many times in RS, demonstrating notability. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That was interesting to read. With something as major as Star Wars, the subject is clearly noteworthy. And it references major news coverage on the subject. Dream Focus 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeeeep as a reasonable spinout article. Doesn't seem to violate any particular policy (certainly not WP:CRYSTAL, if three is any gazing to the future in there it can be removed editorially.) And as there are books on this topic, WP:N is easily met. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is pure speculation, a collection of referenced rumours and quotes means makes it a synthesis of original research by wikipedia editors. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but editors are urged to consider reorganization of this article with the main Star Wars, possibility making an article specifically about the films from Star Wars#Feature Films and the content here, with Star Wars remaining as the franchise lead. This passes WP:CRYSTAL and is sourced, but I'm not thrilled about it being talked about outside of the two other trilogies and thus the suggestion for reorganization. --MASEM (t) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest merge, but that is neither here nor there The notability requirement's purpose is to make sure that there are enough reliable sources to talk about the article. Those reliable sources most definitely exist; I see the Atlantic Monthly and Time Magazine among the sources. The print sources especially make it clear that this is not just a WP:CRYSTAL issue. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Knowledge about a possibility of three films after the original series has been around for a long time. After the Episode III, Lucas has stated he wasn't going to make 7-9. It should be acknowledged. Quistisffviii (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) to Star Wars. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: These don't even exist. This is a WP:Crystalball article about some films that the CREATORS THEMSELVES DENY are going to ever be made. There is nothing at all to say these will ever exist. While a well-written article, it has no good content and should be deleted. A small section about these NONEXISTANT FILMS should be added to the Star Wars page. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources confirm that there were at one time plans for a sequel trilogy, even if now there is no chance of it ever happening. Notability doesn't expire simply because people change their minds. DHowell (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: into Star Wars. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as second-hand crystal-ballery. Second choice is merging. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiable, sourced to reliable sources, no more a synthesis than any other article and hardly breaching WP:CRYSTAL, since this article is about what has been said, not what will be said. Yes, there's an argument that this shouldn't be important, but that's another argument that smacks of POV. I can't see this as being guilty of UNDUE, since this has been reported upon by the BBC. Hiding T 13:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lucas originally described the original Star Wars trilogy as the middle trilogy of a nine-part story. That he since changed his mind doesn't change the original notability of the sequel trilogy, and it is not WP:CRYSTAL since the article is not dependent on whether or not the sequel actually ever gets made. If one were to bother to go back to hard copy sources from the late 70s and early 80s, rather than just rely on Google, they would certainly find information on Lucas' (admittedly limited) description of the sequel. Rlendog (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely reluctant delete. As a strong advocate in favour of Chronology of Star Wars, it pains me to have to agree with this nomination, however, the films do not exist! As a rule, something that does not exist cannot possibly be notable! There are no plans to create the films and the majority of the content of the article is speculation, thus, I must, reluctantly, conclude that it should be deleted, though any decent, referenced material should be merged into Star Wars, though I fear there's all too little of that. HJ Mitchell (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (stricken- I'll elaborate below)HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I;m baffled by your stance. The Chronology of Star Wars doesn't exist either. Come to that, I'd like to see this argument expanded to cover all those things currently in non-existence. Maybe start off small, with Nothing before moving on to the big ones, like Infinity. After all, nothing and infinity by definition can not exist, they are just concepts discussed by people... oh wait, that's like the Star Wars sequel trilogy. All we need now is some reliable sources, what's that, the BBC? And it's a major part of the article. Well, I do declare. Hiding T 19:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you, I am! However, I'm trying to take an objective view. Much as I believe Star Wars is worthy of the coverage it has, a film series that may or may not have once been planned but has indisputably been scrapped is not notable. The only substantial fact in the article is that the series will not be made! nothing and infinity are, at least, mathematical and philosophical concepts, though, perhaps you'd care to nominate them for deletion and we can continue this discussion!!! HJ Mitchell (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think there's more than one substantial fact. Fact: Lucas originally planned significantly more than 6 movies. Fact: Gary Kurtz also knew of the sequel plans. Fact: All producers ever involved now deny ever having even considered sequels. Fact: Hamill stated that he originally promised Lucas to return and play a role in one of the later episodes. There's a lot more to the article than pure speculation, and being covered by both the BBC and Times alone is enough to establish notability for any other topic, so why not this one? Khalfani Khaldun 23:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. It's kind of like how we have articles on Carnival of Light, Paul is Dead, Big Numbers (comics), Hitler Diaries, Spaghetti tree et al. This stuff doesn't exist or didn't happen, but the fact that people discussed them and thought they did happen has made them worthy of note. This article can be better written and better sourced for sure, but that would involve people digging up the many print sources that exist. Starburst would be a good place to look. I've just found a great The Times review of ESB which covers the sequels, so I'm going to integrate that into the article. Hiding T 09:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, I've added info sourced from The Times which speaks of how the initial idea of a wider series was merely an homage, and never intended to be made, which gives the article greater depth and coverage. I don't think this article merits deletion, it's more a case of working out the best way to utilise the information we've got, whether this is the best article title, or whether a merge is more appropriate. This is an issue with teh way we organise data on Wikipedia, that both integration and separation have strong arguments which can only be settled by discussing the apprpriate issues at the correct venue. This discussion isn't really about deletion or crystal balling, because the article isn't about speculating on what might be or might have been, but is about documenting the Star Wars phenomenon, and how it grew. Hiding T 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is extensive discussion of this issue in relevant media. Renaming/refocusing and other cleanup can be discussed elsewhere. Powers ^T 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "somewhere". I love the fact that this is an acticle about a non-event. - jc37 10:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Very well refenced, calling other editors contributions CRUFT is uncivil: "...use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." Ikip (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've stricken my above advocacy in favour of deletion. I hate to admit it, but I've been swayed by the arguments made above and the lambasting I received for my previous stance from Hiding et al. I'm now maintaining a neutral position, though will follow this debate with interest. HJ Mitchell (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2009 (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.