Forum:TC:Category:Andowyne (second nomination)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Category:Andowyne (second nomination)

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; default to keep. Toprawa and Ralltiir 21:50, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Category:Andowyne and everything in it ([[Talk:Category:Andowyne|talk]] - history - links - logs)

Per this current discussion, Willow looks like it may end up deleted. Besides the fact that these articles have nothing to do with Star Wars except a joke, if Willow is deleted, then all of these articles will have redlinks in the "Appearances" section. See further comments in last year's version of this thread. It's past time to kill these. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 15:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Redirect Thorn Drumheller to Weazel; delete everything else

  1. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 15:01, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Imperialles 15:02, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Burninate. Make a section on the StarWars.com page, if we must. Thefourdotelipsis 15:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Per Fourdot. Darth KarikaPlease leave a message after the beep. *boom* 15:20, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  5. NAYAYEN:TALK 15:41, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  6. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:54, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Menkooroo 16:13, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  8. April Fools' jokes are not deserving of an entire slate of articles. Havac 04:59, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  9. --Vandar Tokare42 (Talk to the hand) 04:17, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Jokes do not deserve articles. Yes, Sarlacc Enforcer, I'm looking at you. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 20:02, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

  1. First nom's reasons still apply. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 15:05, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Yawn. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:15, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  3. It's Infinities. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 15:16, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • No, it's not. Unlike, say, Tag and Bink, Willow was never released under the Infinities banner. Its only relevance to Star Wars is a joke. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 15:20, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
      • I misspoke. With a Databank entry, it is as official as anything under the Infinities label, and likewise, just as non-canon. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 20:55, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I'm hesitant to support a blanket deletion vote for these. I think we should keep one article to describe the April Fool's Day joke and then redirect everything else to it. ~ SavageBob 20:39, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per Culator, and per the rather lengthy argument I had with Master Jonathan in that previous nomination, the points of which I still fully stand by. jSarek 23:24, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per Culator. Grunny (talk) 23:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  7. JangFett (Talk) 23:42, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  8. This kind of repeated nomination, in my opinion, is certainly a violation of Don't disrupt Wookieepedia to prove a point and possibly of Consensus as well. Graestan(Talk) 23:50, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 23:52, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 00:00, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  11. I see no point to delete. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 13:51, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Jokes are J-canon. Yes, I just made that up. Dangerdan97 22:22, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:40, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Keep. :p Vetinari(Appointment) 23:00, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • It's worth pointing out that the Databank entries all now display the "Requested page not found" sign we've all come to know and love, and cannot be found via the site's search function. So they no longer have a databank entry. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 21:25, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • And the same thing can be said of many links to SW.com that were created before revamped the site a few years ago. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:45, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
    • True, and they didn't at the time of the last Tc, either. As you note, we've lost a lot of content from The Official Site; we still cite it where relevant, though. And, as LtNOWIS linked last year, there are still archived versions of at least four of the articles: [1], [2], [3], [4]. jSarek 23:48, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
  • Going off reasons from the last nomination, Tag and Bink is an officially licensed Star Wars product that was produced with the intention of being a humorous Star Wars joke. These articles in the TC, however, were never intended to be a Star Wars product of any kind. They certainly aren't canon, they aren't even non-canon. They do not fit in the scale of Star Wars canon because they are not a part of Star Wars at all. They were not even intended to be a serious joke (yes, that makes sense) in the way that Tag and Bink or the various Robot Chicken productions are. You could argue that Robot Chicken should not be placed on the canon scale because it was not an official Lucasfilm product (even if it was, let's pretend it wasn't). Robot Chicken was a (relative to fan parodies or something like that) highly commercially successful production and so should be notable enough to be included on Wookieepedia. They even get their own articles because they could not be covered anywhere else. These TCed articles, however, could quite easily be mentioned in a "Willow April Fools Day Joke" section of the Databank article or, at the very least, in the main Willow article. I fail to see a single reason why these should at least get their own, individual articles. NAYAYEN:TALK 22:46, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Good points all around (Family Guy and Defeat the Dark Side would be other examples). If you are interested, I'm willing to change my vote on this TC to delete, if you're up for changing your vote on the Willow TC to keep. My general thought was to preserve the information, regardless of where. So either that, or supporting a new option of merging all Willow articles into one would be acceptable to me. Dangerdan97 00:35, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • Separate from whether or not these articles are merited, shouldn't only the Databank entries themselves should be listed as sources, and not Willow/Shadow Chronicles? -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 22:52, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • 100% correct. Thefourdotelipsis 00:41, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, so I removed those from the appearances and made a few other minor cleanup things to them. Some of the articles could still really do with a BtS to explain them, and the Databank links should be changed to links to the web archive versions, but I'm too tired at the minute. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 23:39, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Does anyone know if these databank entries were immediately confirmed to be an April Fools joke the moment that they were added to StarWars.com, or if the confirmation came afterwards. If the confirmation came afterwards, then the entries were technically canon for a short amount of time, and so therefore would be deserving of articles on Wookieepedia --Jinzler 15:34, June 4, 2010 (UTC)