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 keep.—Silly Dan (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Anakin Solo's lightsaber (talk - history - links - logs)
There is already a section dedicated to Anakin Solo's lightsaber in the main article, Anakin Solo. The short amount of information within Anakin Solo's lightsaber is no different from that in the lightsaber section of Anakin's article. There's no use of creating a seperate article. In other words, delete. —Mirlen 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Delete
- Mirlen 21:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? This thing should die a bloody violent death. And...Anakin's copy of Swank Magazine. Thefourdotelipsis 10:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep
- It's a unique and distinct item. Why shouldn't it have an article? Anakin Solo isn't about the lightsaber. It's about Anakin. Why should this be shoved in there? Havac 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Most lightsabers don't deserve their own article. Only those that have a legend of their own, independent of their owner(s), do. Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber, inherited as it was by his son and later his daughter-in-law, is a classic example. I would say that young Solo's lightsaber, lodged in a Kashyyyk wood like the Sword in the Stone long after Anakin's death, also has its own legend apart from its owner. jSarek 05:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- What's next? Bacca's Ceremonial Blade? KEJ 07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Per jSarek. Greyman(Paratus) 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- This isn't wikipedia. The article is distinct, it's important, and it's canon. It gets its own article. Wildyoda 19:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Per jSarek. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. This thing had nearly as many possessors as Anakin Skywalker's saber, and was very important as NJO summed itself up. Piequals3 08:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Jediknight19bby (Jedi High Council Chambers!) 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, per jSarek. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 15:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- Well, I'm tempted to debate it all, but I know when I'm defeated. I can understand the need to create a seperate article for Anakin Skywalker's lightsaber; not only is it a classic example of a legendary item, it generates enough content to reliably expand under its own invidual article. I'm not entirely sure if Anakin Solo's lightsaber could fufill the latter criteria, which led to me to propose to merge information
(not that there is much to merge)/delete. And KEJ, don't worry — your Bacca's Ceremonial Blade article is safe. ;) —Mirlen - In the past, we've deleted lightsaber articles, but I don't think we've never had one as notable as this. -LtNOWIS 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Here's what's ironic: KEJ, from what I can tell, has 0 registered edits to Bacca's Ceremonial Blade. --School of Thrawn 101 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please elaborate on that comment. I'm not sure how to interpret it. I brought up Bacca's blade because it's also a specific weapon associated with a specific character, and like Anakin's lightsaber, Bacca's blade is important plotwise to the story that it appears in. I was just trying to point out the parallels between Anakin's lightsaber and Bacca's blade (and all other personal weapons that we have articles on because they are of some significance) to show that there is precedence for such articles. KEJ 08:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mirlen said it was your article. I thought that was ironic because you'd never edited the article. Just a humorous observation. --School of Thrawn 101 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying that. That's right, I've never even touched that article. KEJ 09:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't mean it in the sense that KEJ edited it (although, guiltily enough, I didn't bother checking); you could be fond of things — but not necessarily author them or own them — and still precede them with possessive nouns. Just look at how many fanboys [would love to] lay claim to Aayla Secura...though that's a different story. ;) —Mirlen 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's how I initially construed your use of the second person possessive pronoun... not that I have any special fondness for Bacca's Blade or anything. But, hey, let's not discuss me anymore. After all, it's not me who's up for deletion... yet. KEJ 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't mean it in the sense that KEJ edited it (although, guiltily enough, I didn't bother checking); you could be fond of things — but not necessarily author them or own them — and still precede them with possessive nouns. Just look at how many fanboys [would love to] lay claim to Aayla Secura...though that's a different story. ;) —Mirlen 15:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Thanks for clarifying that. That's right, I've never even touched that article. KEJ 09:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mirlen said it was your article. I thought that was ironic because you'd never edited the article. Just a humorous observation. --School of Thrawn 101 08:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please elaborate on that comment. I'm not sure how to interpret it. I brought up Bacca's blade because it's also a specific weapon associated with a specific character, and like Anakin's lightsaber, Bacca's blade is important plotwise to the story that it appears in. I was just trying to point out the parallels between Anakin's lightsaber and Bacca's blade (and all other personal weapons that we have articles on because they are of some significance) to show that there is precedence for such articles. KEJ 08:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)