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 After 10 days, 7+12+8=0 consensus. -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 16:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

List of sexual references in Star Wars ( history - links - logs)Edit

I find this article quite sad. And immature. It's born of immaturity, lets be frank. We're documenting the times in which something that is not extraordinary (no, seriously) occurs IU? Just because it doesn't happen in the films? It's quite childish, and it's irritating, and, quite frankly, it's a big magnet for multiple varieties of stupid. And it serves no encyclopedic purpose. Let's just be done with it. So, Delete with teeth gnashing and lightning bolts. Thefourdotelipsis 07:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for keepingEdit

1. I view this article as just a bit of fun, nothing immature or childish. Dirty, or perverse? That depends on your perspective. Yes, I bet a sexual maniac would drool over the page, but to other people, it should be considered as, like I said, just bit of fun, and you don't have to be obsessed with sex to mean that. I guess the people who have contributed to the article see it that way. Nightlily
   • Things that are only edited because they're "fun" belong on subpages and the like, or maybe Darthipedia or something. And, with all due respect, if people don't find editing the real articles fun, then they probably should not have an account. -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 17:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
2. What the hell is wrong with you people? -- Darth Culator ^(Talk) 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

   (Comedic vote option) But omgz lolz I kin looks at teh pics of Leia in her bikini nad Dena Shan whens shes omgz nekkid lolz. *Inappropriate background noises censored.* Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 23:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

3. Take it as you will, but this is something that can actually be of help to, say, a parent wondering if the Star Wars novel his or her kid wants to read has any things in it that he or she needs to warn the kid about. I've been asked this kind of thing before, as a matter of fact.--Goodwood ^{(For the Rebellion!)} 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
   • Goodwood has a point. The page is useful in that way. And... a lot of work has been put into this page. I still vote for keeping it, or at least merging it. ---Nightlily---
     • That's not what it's presented as, though. It's not a parental guide, it's a "hehhehehe, they had secks." re suppository. Thefourdotelipsis 23:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

   I don't see why this needs to be deleted, or why it is not encyclopedic. It lists when these events happen and it does not go into unnecessary detail of the events. If you don't like it, don't go to the page. Admiral Carth Onasi 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Single issue voter)

4. I don't have a problem with the article itself, nor with the "heheh they had secks"-thing (childish though it is), so I vote keep. What I do have a problem with is that a lot of the items on the list are not sexual references or, at most, conjecutred sexual references. KEJ 17:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
   • Like what...? Nightlily
     • Zam changing in front of Jango ain't much as a sexual reference. KEJ 13:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
       • Debatable. But we could always remove the debatable ones, if we have to.User:Nightlily 17 October 2007
         • Sure. Note, for the record, I voted keep. KEJ 15:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
5. I vote to keep it, since it's a well-written article and pretty well-sourced. This isn't Wikipedia and we don't have to kowtow to the Fun Destroyers over there. Thanos6 15:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
6. Keep per Thanos. Kuralyov 03:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
   • I agree with Thanos. Also... I don't see this article as childish. It only describes what appears in the books, comics etc, and beyond that, the entries are not elaborated. If the references can be in the books etc., we can also make a list of them. I'm a grown woman, and I like the article (and no, I don't read it to get excited, it doesn't even make me excited). A lot of work has been put into it, and it would be a shame to delete it now.User:Nightlily 17 October 2007
7. Return of the Hyperinclusionist. Captain Daal 14:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
   • Excuse me...?User:Nightlily 17 October 2007
     • I'm the Hyperinclusionist returning. I haven't checked the Trash Compactor for some time, but now I'm back. And I vote "keep" for much the same reason I usually do: SW-related content should always be kept lest there are very convincing reasons not to. And here the arguments aren't that convincing. If people are offended, we could always put up some kind of disclaimer instead of deleting it all. Captain Daal 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
       • This is a discussion, not a vote. - Sikon 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
         • Obviously, it's a vote. It's just a vote accompanied by arguments. KEJ 15:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for deletingEdit

1. Sophomoric and unencyclopedic. Replace "sexual references" with "food references" or "tax collection references" and you'll see how silly the concept of lists of this sort are in general. jSarek 07:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
2. A place to dump the "dirty" Star Wars pictures? How incredibly thoughtful of us for the browsing pervert. Cull Tremayne 09:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
3. Second the unencyclopedic. This article has no information on any kind of subject, it's just a list of passages and lines that mention a particular—and non-notable—process. It's a glorified appearances list. - Lord Hydronium 10:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Per the above, and anyone, a lot of this is not sexually related in any way -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
5. This isn't one of our better articles. It originally started out as a subpage of Azizlight, then someone thought it would be a good idea to move it to the main namespace. I say delete. -- SFH 15:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
6. You know the arguments: if we keep this, then we'd need articles for all common bodily functions; it's unencyclopedic; "funny" is not grounds for keepage; it makes us look bad; etc. Take your pick. -- Ozzel 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
7. It's unencyclopdic for various reasons, and implies that everything listed in the article is confirmed by an official to be a sexual reference. Last time I read throught the article, I found most of it speculative. For many, I failed to see the reference. You can consider an X-wing's nose a sexual reference because if you take a look at it from a perverted perspective, it looks like an erected penis. I (used to) spend a lot of time in a fan community for a modable space sim, FreeSpace 2, and some ship models people submitted there were said to "look like a penis." If you looked at a gallery of known SW spaceships, you might also find shapes that one might consider a sexual reference. It's a matter of interpretation if something is a reference to sexuality, and this doesn't fit an encyclopedia. Encyclopedic articles aren't supposed to have more than one interpretation. - TopAce ^(Talk) 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
   • I don't know about the video games, since I do not play them, but I've read all of published material listed, and none of the entries are a matter of interpretation. They are real sexual references, not some too-much-imagination stuff like the X-wing mentioned above. ---Nightlily---
8. Per everyone above, it's not what we're here to do. Greyman^(Paratus) 23:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
9. Per the above. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
10. Per AdmirableAckbar's comment. I'd vote to merge/move except that Azizlight or anybody for that matter is entirely free to place the article in their userspace if they should so choose. I think Deleting is the best vote for setting precedent for if and when this kind of immature, unencyclopedic topic should arouse arise again. Wildyoda 03:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
11. Delete, yay. --Imperialles 21:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for mergingEdit

1. If it came from Azizlight's subpage, why not just merge it back and still be able to de-article it? Too much work has been put into this page, regardless of material. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
2. Per Riff. Suppose some misguided individual put my caption page in the main namespace. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 23:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
3. I like Riff's compromise idea the best, especially since it allows to remove it from the "officially endorsed" main space to a subpage while keeping it around if ever we should need it for the purposes of Goodwood's point. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 03:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
4. Per Riff. As a subpage it's fine, just not article worthy. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 13:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
5. I fall under this category. I myself find it an interesting read, as it showed stuff I would have never expected, and as someone said above, could be useful to parents who want to avoid exposing their kids to anything. That being said if it can't be considered a main part of the Wiki, then a subpage would do. EDIT: I made a subpage, an archive of sorts with the current content of the page, if Azizlight would rather keep his version of the page.--TheUltimate3 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
6. —Xwing328^(Talk) 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
7. JMAS 04:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
   • This isn't in response to JMAS, it's just that no one seems to be reading Ozzel's post below. A "Merge" vote involves the main namespace. Deleting this here doesn't prevent Azizlight or anyone else from making a subpage on it. People are free to do what they want on a subpage within limits of policy, regardless of whether this is kept or deleted. Basically "merge" is just a different delete vote, only it splits up the actual delete vote. - Lord Hydronium 12:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
8. I've decided to vote for this option. As per Riff, let's copy the information to Azizlight's subpage--if he consents--and redirect it there. People have clearly worked hard on this article and I wouldn't like it to go to waste. Unit 8311 12:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
   • That's still completely possible with the delete vote. - Lord Hydronium 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Other commentsEdit

• 4dot's first name is Frank! :P -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure what to vote here. The article's admittedly uncyclopediac, but it makes me collapse into hysterics every time I read it. Unit 8311 15:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, I see points for both sides. I'm staying neutral and not gonna vote on this one. - JMAS 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, before we get too into this... I want to make sure that "delete" and "merge" don't cancel each other out. Generally, it seems like the "merge" option is reserved for merges within the main namespace. Since this would be going to a user subpage, and we really are pretty tolerant with those unless they get ridiculously out of hand, I don't think the "merge" option is really needed here. I'm voting "delete", but I have no problem with the user subpage option, and even if I did, I really don't have any say regarding userpages (aside from our current policies). I say all this just because I don't want to see this fail because of an unnecessary split; I would urge the mergists to reconsider, since deletion does not at all mean that it can't continue as a user subpage. -- Ozzel 04:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not actually our decision to decide what goes on people's subpages, so I think it improper that we are voting on doing so. Also, doesn't a merge imply a redirect. And per Ozzel, deleting it doesn't mean we can't have it on a subpage. -- AdmirableAckbar ^[Talk] 15:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
    • A comment on Goodwood's argument: A kid cannot see the sexual reference unless it is very obvious. - TopAce ^(Talk) 15:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• I know, it doesn't count as a vote, but I'm asking for the article to be left as it is. Running a small SW fan-site of my own, I'm reffering to this article several times of my own, so it was unpleasant for me to see it nominated for deletion. It's well written, it has most of sexual references ever appeared. Sadly, some (like Path of Destruction) are still missing. Finally, the article is written in very encyclopedian style, so there is no need for removal, I think.—Unsigned comment by Mauser (talk • contribs).