Forum:TC:Geonosian repeating blaster soldiers

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Geonosian repeating blaster soldiers

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 delete. —MJ— Holocomm 07:01, January 8, 2014 (UTC)

Geonosian repeating blaster soldiers (talk - history - links - logs)

Just no. This is not a special type of Geonosian warrior. It is just a warrior who happens to be manning a repeating blaster. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:17, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Vote

Delete

  1. As nominator - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:17, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 04:22, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 04:23, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Absolutely not. Two Geonosians among thousands shooting at clone troopers. I don't recall this ever making it notable enough. Winterz (talk) 20:17, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Yeah just delete. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:39, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Supreme Emperor (talk) 23:57, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Jinzler (talk) 15:21, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Trip391 (talk) 09:21, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
  9. Absolutely. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 13:22, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
  10. I cannot see anything that makes these guys any more worthy of an article than the 129387129371 clone troopers hoping for articles.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 14:17, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
  11. Per Cal. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:06, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
  12. Per Earl JangFett (Talk) 19:40, January 2, 2014 (UTC)
  13. How many Geonosians were there? And we just pick two out of a huge group? Agreeing with Winterz and everyone else here. LIGHTNING12345678910 (talk) 22:15, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
  14. Esjs's comment below initially led me to believe that these were two specific, notable Geonosians. Now that they have been revealed to be random minions in a large group, they are clearly not notable. —MJ— Holocomm 01:19, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
    • Sorry my comment was misleading to you. I made my comment completely from what I saw in the screen shot (which has since been deleted/removed, apparently), which seemed to be focused on the two Geonosians, therefore making them appear somewhat "significant". I don't think I'll be changing my vote, but at this point I don't care one way or the other. - Esjs(Talk) 20:23, January 7, 2014 (UTC)
      • And I looked at the screenshot before voting and saw the same thing you did, so we share the blame here. Anyway, what's done is done, and we can now move on with deleting this in slightly over an hour from now. :) —MJ— War Room 03:10, January 8, 2014 (UTC)
  15. If its not notable enough than it shouldn't be here... Manoof (talk) 10:54, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
  16. Unidentified Geonosian warrior (repeating blaster; third from left; wearing Crocs) 1358 (Talk) 00:59, January 5, 2014 (UTC)

Keep

Split into separate articles for each gunner

Per Esjs below, except that we don't do group articles. One subject, one article. —MJ— Council Chambers 16:34, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  1. As much as I hate the billion of unidentified TCW character articles out there, I think this is the better solution. 501st dogma(talk) 17:24, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Ayrehead02 (talk) 14:04, December 26, 2013 (UTC)
  3. I guess per me, below - Esjs(Talk) 21:58, December 27, 2013 (UTC)
    Per 501st Manoof (talk) 11:34, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
  4. They're canonical (or cannonical, heh) characters, and they do have a sort of plot/narrative function. I think they should be split up into "unidentified character articles". KEJ (talk) 22:03, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'd be all for a speedy deletion, but hey, it's Christmas. And there really is no third option here. Not even worth a redirect. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 04:17, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

  • Just use {{Delete}} please. JangFett (Talk) 04:40, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
  • FWIW, it seems to me that the intention of this article is along the lines of "Unidentified Geonosian gunners (Second Battle of Geonosis)". So to me, a third choice would be rename. I mean, they're canonically depicted, and more than just mere extras. They deserve an article... with a better name. - Esjs(Talk) 04:33, December 25, 2013 (UTC)