Forum:TC:Jayfon/Canon

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 Forum closed without consensus; article speedily deleted for lack of sourcing verification. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 14:10, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Jayfon/Canon (history - links - logs - delete - protect)

I've checked the available episode guide, behind the scenes, etc. I also went through the episode itself. The name "Jayfon" is not used anywhere in any current canon source. Coruscantfan ^(Talk) 19:59, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

Keep

Delete

1. Coruscantfan ^(Talk) 19:59, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

   Speedy it if it's been unverified for over seven days. I don't think it needs a trash compactor. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:18, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

2. Cade Calrayn 20:21, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
3. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 09:26, June 3, 2015 (UTC)
   • It would be best if no one else voted here and for people who already have to strike their votes to allow the seven-day speedy deletion to run its course, per the discussion below. This article will almost certainly need to be recreated at some point once a source names this character, and we don't want to run into the procedural complication of having to recreate through a misbegotten deletion consensus. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 09:32, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• This absolutely does not need to go through the Trash compactor process. The Trash compactor is for article deletions of a potentially contentious nature that require community discussion. If you see an article created with bogus sourcing, simply remove the source from the article and place the {{Verify}} template on it. The article will then be deleted by default after seven days. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:23, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, then in that case, can't we just can this and have done? It's already been unverified for over seven days. ProfessorTofty (talk) 02:21, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
    • No, according to our procedures, because none of you added the Verify tag. Hopefully, we've learned a lesson here. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 20:09, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
      • It had the "Confirm" tag on it, which, while apparently not correct in terms of procedures, actually states the facts of the matter "This article's name or topic requires confirmation from the listed source(s)." Unlike the "Verify" tag, which states "This article does not have a list of Appearances or Sources and is therefore pending source verification as possible fanon. See the Layout Guide for more information." and is actually wrong because 1.) it does have a list of Appearances and 2.) the article obviously isn't fanon, it's just that according to our procedures, we can't use that name based on the source provided. ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:19, June 2, 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, the confirm tag needs some reworking. We can look at adding some sort of flagging or maintenance tagging to that template after a certain amount of time. In the meantime, the article in question will die next Monday. Cade Calrayn 20:23, June 2, 2015 (UTC)