Forum:TC:392 BBY/Legends

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 or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 20:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

392 BBY/Legends (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

All the source says is that Kal'Shebbol was settled four centuries prior, which is too vague of a date to merit a year page.

Delete

1. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 03:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. bet Fan26 (Talk) 03:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Lewisr (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. Loqiical (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
5. Meh. OOM 224 (he/him) 18:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. —spookywilloww^talk 22:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
7. Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Keep

1. I disagree, we have year pages based on approximate placements. Rsand 30 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
2. SorcererSupreme21 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Rsand. Although a larger discussion about vague statements like this could be warranted. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 12:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
4. It has been common practice for a while to make approximate year pages. Plus it is really hard to draw the line on what is not specific enough. Is "a decade" specific enough for an article? What about "two decades" or "fifty years"? ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola}
5. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 13:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
6. Per above Jarhead002 (talk) (he/him) 21:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
7. Per Rsand Bonzane10 (holonet) 22:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
8. Per TC7's reasoning. UberSoldat93 (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
9. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 19:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
10. <-Omicron^{(Leave a message at the BEEP!)} 15:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Comments