Forum:TC:Jedi Talk

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Jedi Talk

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 delete, but allow recreation with better sourcing/confirmed notable information. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jedi Talk (talk - history - links - logs)

No proof of notability whatsoever. Just a collection of factoids relating to an old internet radio community.

Arguments for keeping

  1. Collecting factoids is what we do. -- Ozzel 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. The problem with notability is that it forces us to censor out information on interesting things like this one. KEJ 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. I volunteered for the show and even I wasn't told everything going on behind the scenes. I helped find guests for the hosts to interview among other things and will be happy to updated this article with things I can confirm happened. Some things I think the hosts want to be kept under wraps though for possible future ventures, but there is still a lot to tell. Things that are suspect can still be flagged as usual. I think this article should stay so at least people can know the show existed and did bring joy to many fans. -- Dewback 03:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • If you can cite some independent sources that demonstrate the site's notability, I'll happily change my vote. That TFN link is a good start. jSarek 09:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for deletion

  1. Per nomination reason. --Imperialles 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Delete, per Imperialles below. If any of the article IS true, we're better off starting from scratch than trying to save this one. jSarek 10:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. You have a hard time convincing me that this is worth saving, especially since we can't prove their claims. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 14:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per all the above. Chack Jadson (Talk) 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. Delete unless claims proven. —Silly Dan (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I would like to see some indepenent verifiability before I vote, and the article is abominable as is, but if they were interviewing EU big-wigs, I'd lean towards keep. Thefourdotelipsis 01:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Per Fourdot. A lot of the article is VERY suspect (Stackpole loved the show enough to dedicate a book to it? And he won't write another SW book because his dedication wasn't left in? I think I want to see THAT cited in triplicate), but even if only the core facts are true, it's probably notable enough for retention. jSarek 09:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
    • My point is, we cannot establish the notability of this article as is. These bold claims are very unlikely to be sourced, thus we should simply delete the whole thing. --Imperialles 09:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Defunct website -- Ozzel 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)