Forum:TC:Callahan's E-wing

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Callahan's E-wing

This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. —spookywilloww^talk 04:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Callahan's E-wing (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)

I am not one to nominate something for deletion lightly.

The stated source is a fan site. The image of the actual packaging for the model displayed on the site does not call it Callahan's E-wing. The packaging calls it "Ewing Starfighter (blue)". It is the model builder that calls it Lt. Callahan's E-wing, therefore, not official. Evidently the official packaging does call it "Lt. Callahan's E-wing" but that doesn't negate the source listed is a fan site and it still doesn't make it notable.
There is nothing unique about this fighter that sets it apart from Porter's E-wing. I'm just not convinced landing to block Sabine's path makes it notable enough. If anything, it makes Sabine's speeder bike notable for being able to compact itself to fit under the fighter.

There you have it. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 06:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete

Just not thinking a redirect is needed, though I might be convinced otherwise. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 06:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't seem notable ThePedantry (talk) 06:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Cade Calrayn 06:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Bonzane10 06:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Wok142 (talk) 08:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 08:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 08:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
OOM 224 11:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Even though it also got a Hasbro set I don't think we need pages for individual, un-named, standard ships. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
These pages of random ships that aren't unique or important at all are getting out of hand! First Order Corporal ^{First Order comms} 13:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Fan26 (Talk) 19:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
--Vitus Infinitus^Talk 01:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 12:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Asithol (talk) 07:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to E-wing starfighter

Keep

Per Amazon Elijah Palmer (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 00:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Lewisr (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Identified on the packaging. ThrawnChiss7 ^{Assembly Cupola} 19:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
There is a precedent for "Callahan's E-wing" being suitable identification if it is actually identified as such in a source (which has been established to be the case), and if a subject is ID'd it is notable by default. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Changing my vote solely because there is now a proper ID for the ship. Per spooky in the comments, this vote (and many other TCs beforehand) shouldn't need to have happened in the first place. TCs should not be a common occurrence, and the burden of finding the sources and writing an article up shouldn't lie with everyone else—please try to take it slowly with more care if you're continuing to create new articles. OOM 224 01:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Rsand 30 (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Darth Soda ^(Talk) 12:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Where does the packaging say "E-wing starfighter (blue)"? Because when I look everywhere else online, it says "Lt. Callahan's E-wing". Elijah Palmer (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think JMAS was referring to the collector's guide, although you are right to point out the packaging actually refers to this as "LT. CALLAHAN'S E-WING™". NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 12:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Exactly, which is why this page needs to be keptElijah Palmer (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

User:NBDani managed to clean the page up. Does this change a few minds?Elijah Palmer (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I haven't voted yet, but the phrasing of the above sits off with me. Even if in stub form, pages with borderline notability ideally should be drafted up in a clean enough state to begin with IMO to avoid unnecessary rounds of paperwork. It's never been nor will it ever be a requirement, but as repetitive as it is given how much it's happened recently for all-similar cases, the right approach may be to put just a bit more into some of these borderline-notable pages, as they may not get TC'd to begin with if they aren't in said subpar state. Saves time—for admins, for voters...—spookywilloww^talk 02:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)