Forum:TC:Corellian Star Destroyer

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Corellian Star Destroyer

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 keep. Graestan(Talk) 18:13, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Corellian Star Destroyer (talk - history - links - logs)

There's no indication this is a special kind of Star Destroyer, just any SD that happens to be made at Corellia.

Delete

  1. Lord Hydronium 05:37, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Imperialles 05:38, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • I am for deleting similar articles as well. --Imperialles 18:30, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  3. For the record, that IP is VT-16. Also, CSD. Toprawa and Ralltiir 05:39, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  4. I'm amazed of the amount of VT-stuff on the site. -- 1358 (Talk) 05:41, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • Kill the others as well. -- 1358 (Talk) 06:58, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Grunny (talk) 05:43, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Unless by some miracle someone can produce a valid reason to keep. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 05:51, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Oh, VT. Is there no bottom to your spurious speculations spun into full articles? jSarek 05:58, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Fanonriffic. Havac 06:00, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 14:09, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  10. This one only; not the other two. See note below. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:23, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:24, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Per Fiolli. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 18:57, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:30, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

Comments

Couple more in the same vein: Bothawui Star Destroyer, Tallaan Star Destroyer. I'm content to make this TC a referendum on them too; if anyone sees a reason they should be treated differently, speak now or forever hold your peace. - Lord Hydronium 06:03, May 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • My objection to that is simply procedural; eight people voted for the one article before these were added to the docket. Had these been here from the start, I'd have no problem. Deleting them as well on the assumption that those eight would have voted in favor is very bad form and a bad faith gesture. If all eight vote to delete as well, then let's do it. For now, I object to lumping them all together. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 18:23, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • When this TC closes it pretty much sets a precedent that says it's OK to CSD those other two. --Imperialles 18:29, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • Kill 'em all. Same thing. -- 1358 (Talk) 18:30, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not bad faith. I saw those after I'd started the CSD, realized they were exactly the same kind of article, and figured that this would be a precedent for them. Do you object just to that assumption—which I understand, even if I don't personally agree—or do you feel that these constitute a different case and should be preserved? - Lord Hydronium 20:13, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I support deleting them all, but I feel that killing them all based on this one CT that started with the intent of deleting only the Corellian ship is not right. Unless everyone who has already voted (or at least a majority) agrees that the other two should be deleted as well, this TC should not include the Bothawui and Tallaan ships. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:26, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
        • What Chack just said beautifully expresses my opinion. The TC was started for the Corellian ship and that ship only. The other two, while similar, cannot be lumped in after voting has started without approval from those who have voted already. Assuming that they would want it deleted is in bad faith. I also do not believe that this TC sets a strong precedent to automatically delete something, regardless of who wrote it, just because it is similar. TCs are set up for one article at a time. That said, had these been here from the beginning, I would not have opposed to mass-compacting them. If a majority of the first eight have no problem, then I have no problem. (I do note that Xd and Imp have both given the nod to the other two.) That's basically the point. Let's have consensus to delete the others rather than haphazardly lumping them together. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 21:53, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • As a note, I support deleting the others as well—but as has been stated above: only if the other users support it. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 22:35, May 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • There's no difference whether those other articles are on here or not. If the Corellian SD goes through, those get deleted, because they're identical offenders (a Star Destroyer from a non-Kuat/Fondor shipyard must be a new class!), and that's the precedent. If they're added to the docket, well, that just makes it nice and clean. How is that "bad faith"? If we're here voting that calling a Star Destroyer a new class because it comes from a shipyard we didn't hear about making Star Destroyers before is fanon and needs to go, how does that not make the other two articles fanon? What possible justification could be raised to save them? They're identical cases. Havac 07:15, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm ready to support getting rid of all three but to the "basic" Star Destroyer article should be added something about them being build in other places as well beside Kuat and the few others.--Dionne Jinn (Something to say?) 07:35, May 2, 2010 (UTC)