Forum:TC:Darth Vader's lightsaber

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Darth Vader's lightsaber

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. Grunny (talk) 10:00, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Darth Vader's lightsaber (talk - history - links - logs)

Okay, this was one of several articles placed in the trash-compactor as a group. The result of the group compacting attempt was No Consensus. Brought up here and here, in an attempt to make a site-wide policy. The policy in the works seems to effectively place each in the TC anyway. So here they are, individual Trash-Compactors for each article.SinisterSamurai 05:42, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

  1. For the longest time, I was completely opposed to having articles on any lightsabers. But then Tommy did a great job with Lumiya's lightwhip, and others could easily follow. Then I realized that many lightsabers - if not all of them - are unique items, many with interesting histories. And lastly, I remembered an article we have on the Bimkall sector - something that doesn't even exist in-universe. If we have an article on a nonexistent sector, then I see no reason why we shouldn't have articles on lightsabers. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:38, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:39, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. CC7567 (talk) 18:56, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Consider me a recent convert. Chack Jadson (Talk) 18:57, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  6. --Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 19:31, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Borsk Fey'lya Talk 14:27, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Grunny (talk) 00:31, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  9. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 00:33, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  10. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:34, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  11. The fact that an article doesn't make much of a case for the uniqueness of its subject doesn't mean the subject is not unique. ~ SavageBob 02:40, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  12. It may not be a very unique weapon, but its famous, and its stained with a lot of blood. Keep. Jensaarai 18:30, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Havac 09:06, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  14. -- 1358 (Talk) 16:53, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  15. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:47, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  16. --TK-299 (Click Here) Imperial Emblem 12:52, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  17. --Vandar Tokare42 (Talk to the hand) 23:09, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Kill

  1. SinisterSamurai 05:42, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 17:52, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Imperialles 18:21, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. It's really just his lightsaber, not a special lightsaber of any kind. Graestan(Talk) 19:25, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Weak kill. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:23, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  6. There may be some unique info, but not enough to warrant an article. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 18:11, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  7. All this article would be is a list of who he killed with it. Not to mention it was broken and replaced several times IIRC. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 22:53, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Komment

Long page. Non-unique history. Sourcebook entry? SinisterSamurai 05:42, May 15, 2010 (UTC)