Forum:TC:Instant camera

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Instant camera

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 rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus.—Silly Dan (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Instant camera (talk - history - links - logs)

Like the Darts (game) article, this is based on a prop in a LEGO game: non-notable from a non-canon source.

Delete

  1. Enochf 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Imperialles 19:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. What next? Jacuzzi? Unit 8311 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Chack Jadson (Talk) 23:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Delete. Delete. Delete.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. Hyperinclusionist that I may be, I draw the line at completely noncanon minor items. Havac 17:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Non-canon, non-notable, originally-researched conjecturally-named inanimate object :| -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. I really don't see the value in including this article in Wookieepedia. Delete. Thunderforge 04:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Please. Graestan(Talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Not canonical but licensed. Non-canon tag on it. Nobody will think it's actually canonical. Nice to see that the spirit of purging of Wikipedia also reigns here. KEJ 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Now that's just plain not fair. Hyperinclusionism aside, we have to draw the line somewhere.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 13:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
      • And that line has already been drawn far, far below this. jSarek 22:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Per KEJ. jSarek 23:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Since when does canon matter when it comes from a licensed source? -- Ozzel 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. I don't see the harm in this. I do agree with what KEJ said (minus the wikipedia comment)—it is licensed. Greyman(Paratus) 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
    Nevermind that comment... It's just my inner obnoxious provocative teenager. KEJ 20:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Why not? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 21:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  6. NighthawkLeader 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  7. Per KEJ. Din's Fire 997 19:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  8. Per jSarek's response to Goodwood. There's hyperinclusionism, but on the flip side, there's canon snobbery. Have some fun. Wildyoda 03:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. It's a legitimate, licensed item, albiet a non-canon one. And you can't use the "it's a parody of blah blah blah"; look at Manny Both-Hanz or Melvin Fett. Or, for an even more poignant example, this piece of non-canon fun. Also, that's why we have {{noncanon}} and {{conjecture}}. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 03:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. We're not having another purge here. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion