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, defaults to keep with notes.—Silly Dan (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Jedi brute (talk - history - links - logs)
Leland Chee has confirmed that the term isn't canon. [1]
Previous discussion: Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Jedi brute. - Sikon 02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I say keep, but turn it into a conjecturally named article about the species. -- Ozzel 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, Keep --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, specify title is game mechanics. Didn't we use to have a template for this? QuentinGeorge 11:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; it's a gameplay mechanic. It's no more canon than all the Jedi at Luke's academy being clones of three people just because Jedi Outcast doesn't have a different character model for each Jedi. It's a character model repeated throughout a level for gameplay reasons and given a silly character model name. If anything, merge to the BTS of Jastus Farr. Havac 17:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per Quentin. Kuralyov 17:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we have a template for a conjectural title, but not for a gameplay mechanic title. - Sikon 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
How many of the statements in the article could be cited if this received in-text sourcing? I'd say Delete if this is simply game mechanics that have received a lot of speculation since the title has been deemed mechanics-only by Chee, but keep as a conjecturally-titled article if they were actually described in Purge (which I don't own). Wildyoda 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. Every single sentence beyond the first paragraph in that article is fanon. I own both sources cited in that article and they establish no such things. Furthermore, if one accepts Chee's statement that the name is gameplay mechanics -- and one must accept the claim -- then the article has no content, because the first paragraph's "information" is entirely dependent upon their holding a unique title. Ladies and gentlemen, this is an article with neither name nor content. Havac 01:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- In that case it can be merged into a BtS for Jastuss Farr. QuentinGeorge 06:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd certainly support that. Havac 15:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- In that case it can be merged into a BtS for Jastuss Farr. QuentinGeorge 06:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Havac. --FireV 02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep and make about the species per Ozzel. - Lord Hydronium 02:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, as it represents a Jedi group on the Temple when Anakin began the purge. If it cannot be kept, it should at lest be re-directed to another article with information on it such as "Jedi Purge", "assault on the Jedi Temple" or somethign like that. Anyway, it should be kept.—Unsigned comment by Farlstendoiro (talk • contribs)
- Ooops. My fault. I forgot signing my own comment; I was in a hurry. But yes, it was me. Thank you for menctioning it - Skippy Farlstendoiro 08:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Havac. Atarumaster88 21:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. --Imperialles 12:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Darth Anxor 17:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep. Windu223(Purple Lightsaber)
- Since Havac has answered my questions, I'll reiterate Delete as this has no canon basis. (Agree with the fact that even if this was verifiable, it would be based on the name itself being canon and not game mechanics, a criterion it does not meet.) Wildyoda 20:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Havac. jSarek 22:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Bonko 16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Ajrand 05:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as conjectural, since they clearly are some kind of specialized Jedi. KEJ 23:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- A clear case of Delete. No canon basis for anything save the pics. "Wipe them out... all of them!" And this includes Jedi snipers too. Evir Daal 11:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Havac and QuentinGeorge. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 04:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Quentin? Didn't he say Keep? I Keep because its a canon subspecies, even if the name isn't canonical. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)