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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script)[edit]

Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Recreation of deleted article . Very little sourced information on the script itself - nearly all references refer to the released film, and most of those are not from reliable sources - majority of article is unsourced original research. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although my first instinct was to believe that this was a hoax, I can see that it was the working title of a screenplay by George Lucas and another writer for a possible sequel; as such, it's relevant to the history of the Indiana Jones franchise. If it had been written by someone not associated with the film, that would be different. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, saying it is a recreation of deleted material is not really fair, the redlink is from a redirect deleted for being an implausible misnomer. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - No need to have a separate article. All of this material could easily be incorporated into the main article about the film. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dunno... there's enough here that doing that would be sort of clumsy. I assume we'd basically have to eliminate the plot narrative to make the merge work, right? (I'm personally leaning weak keep on this right now.) Townlake (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE Working titles change and scripts get rewritten. Nothing special here. A brief mention of the working title at the movies article will suffice. ccwaters (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better yet, work a mention of it at Indiana_Jones_franchise ccwaters (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as this appears to an "in progress" draft, rather than a distinct product. It's true there's a lot of text in this article, but most of that is taken by a plot summary which is very much overlong for our purposes. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unused, early draft of a movie script really isn't notable enough to get its own article. In addition, pretty much all relevent information regarding this script's role in the development of Indy 4 is already covered in the article for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. In fact, really, the only information here that isn't in the other article is the overly long, unsourced, and quite possibly made up plot summary. There's no reason for this article to exist Rorshacma (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge C'mon, not really unscourced, is it? Plot can't be fabricated since a link to the actual script is provided. Nothing about the original screenplay's evolution or Lucas' creative thought process (or even the debate between Spielberg and Lucas) are present on the Crystal Skull page. (Though I do agree the plot is overly long, and I have tried to trim it down...)Dipolemoment (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)— Dipolemoment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • The Crystal Skull page talks in length about the "Saucer Men" script, Lucas' idea of basing the fourth film on 50's B-movies, and the fact that Ford and Spielburg were against his original ideas. And that's all that really needs to be said about a canned draft of a script. In addition, as the opening post here already mentioned, the majority of the sources cited in this article are ones referring to the completed "Crystal Skulls" film, and have nothing to do with the "Saucer Men" script. In fact, the entire "Reception" section after the first paragraphs is talking only about the reception and reviews of "Crystal Skulls", and thus I don't even know why its even there.Rorshacma (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I believe a cursory inspection demonstrates this untrue, but we've said our piece, let's leave it to others to put in their two cents.Dipolemoment (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was really fascinating stuff. I love to see "behind the scenes" of things. I just wish there was first drafts of something better, like Star Wars or the first Indiana Jones that would be totally cooler! Youcallhimdoctorjones (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — Youcallhimdoctorjones (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete per not actually being a real movie. A mention at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (the one that is apparently based on this) or Indiana Jones franchise would do, as long as it is backed up by actual proper-like sources (I refer to the nom's comment that almost all sources are to do with IJCS). -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR 07:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added references from CNN, the Associated Press, Entertainment Weekly and the New York Daily News. Dipolemoment (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As much as I'd like to keep this as final proof of George Lucas's insanity, the undue weight principle applies. WillOakland (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. ColdFusion650 (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE! Obviously a HOAX! Did anyone actually believe this?? Scifigeek314 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC) — Scifigeek314 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• WEAK KEEP or MERGE i think it was interesting to read, with a lot of material not in the indy 4 page. if it were an original draft of macbeth or star wars i'd say keep it, but indy 4 is not so relevent (and wasnt such a good movie anyway) but at least stuff about Lucas' movie-theory in the original script should be kept and maybe a watered plot but the reception should be changed or removed Princess organa (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)— Princess organa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep/Merge to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Seems like the topic is important in the development of the movie and can be reliably sourced so some extent, personally I don't think much past a couple of paragraphs in the development section of the main film article is necessary although that's really an editorial decision not for AfD. 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest9999 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 June 2008
• Please Keep! I just put this website up two days ago and I've been fighting for its life ever since. I've taken everyone's suggestion so far. I just edited the "Reception" section so that now it refers exclusively to the reception of the original script (not the movie) and it doesn't repeat any reference from the movie's page. The main argument seems to be that George Lucas' original script is irrelevant or trivial, but according to Wikipedia rules and standards (containing multiple reliable sources) it is a totally legit entry. I mean, for goodness sake, it is George freakin' Lucas! Dipolemoment (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no need to "vote" again - it doesn't get counted twice, and you've already made your feelings plain. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to your Comment - dude, I didn't assume a bot was counting votes, just wanted people to know I'm entertaining their complaints and recommendations. ....hmmm, but if you want to count votes, drumroll please!... 5 votes for KEEP, 5 votes for MERGE, 5 votes for DELETE (and that's not including my second vote (even the President gets to vote for him/herself once) but it does include the dork who thought it was all a hoax)... Exciting isn't it?! You and me, head-to-head! Brahma vs. Shiva! Dipolemoment (talk) 00:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVIL. Calling people "dorks" isn't going to sway anyone to your argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to your Comment about my Comment - I see your "Consensus" and raise you WP:NOTDEMOCRACY ...and, dude, the dork comment was a joke, chill! :) Dipolemoment (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to help you out because I see you're (cough) new here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note Dipolemoment, the (re)creator of this article, was blocked as a sockpuppet [1] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the information is in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. We do not create articles for every draft of the script of every film. So where's the article on Frank Darabont's City of the Gods script eh? Shame people would rather write an article than check to see the info is already there. Alientraveller (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Someone has created it here Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods (script). Please consider deleting this article as well, if the nomination for deletion is approved. Note that both the "(script)" article have redirects pointing to them. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as all pertinent information is either already in IJatKotCS, or can be merged into it. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MightyWarrior and Alientraveller above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Early development script which is not encyclopedic in itself but meaningful when discussed within the history of the finished film. Moreover, this is a WP:CFORK. Gwen Gale (talk)
• Delete This is already mentioned in the article (and at excessive length yet), as it is at best an early draft of the current film. If Lucas decides to publish this script for some reason, then it could be worth an article. But him publishing this is not likely. It's not like Arthur Clarke or Harlan Ellison situations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Alientraveller's remarks. Expand the section within the movie's main article if need be, but it's not necessary to have an article fork. csaribay (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CFORK and nom. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2008 (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.