[WikiEN-l] Why AFD just does not work

Fri Jun 16 19:58:51 UTC 2006

On 6/16/06, Cobb <sealclubbingfun at googlemail.com> wrote:
> I have no problem with an article on "Lightsaber (Star Wars)"... the toys,
> the stunt work... the effect it has had on popular culture etc etc. They
> could even mention that some people have taken the styles developed
> for the films and tried to replicate it at a serious level. All of this
> could
> be written in an encyclopedic manner, with reference to sources, instead
> of being original research and fan waffle.
>
> But... the only reason this AFD was "keep" is because of the number of
> Star Wars voters. Take a look at the history of the article too. Short of
> slashing and burning it (and then it may as well have been deleted),
> it's not going to get any better because it was named for and written from
> a fictional viewpoint by masses of fans who cannot tell real from
> imaginary...  and as a result it is fundmentally unencyclopedic.

It is a start.

> It should
> have been deleted, if only to preserve the illusion that AFD isn't a big joke and
> to give it a chance to start again (with a different name).
>

Don't need to start again.

> >Legit real-world martial art phenomenon: There are a few people trying to
> >replicate the movie fighting style at a serious level.
>
> Not with lightsabers they aren't.
>
> Anyway, I'm not here to fight a case for deleting it. I'm just pointing out
> a
> particularly hideous case of why AFD is a grotesque broken horror show.

But unless you can show the outcome was wrong you haven't done that.

-- 
geni