Forum:TC:Kit Fisto's lightsaber

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Kit Fisto's lightsaber

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 No consensus. Default to keep. Grunny (talk) 10:14, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Kit Fisto's lightsaber (talk - history - links - logs)

Okay, this was one of several articles placed in the trash-compactor as a group. The result of the group compacting attempt was No Consensus. Brought up here and here, in an attempt to make a site-wide policy. The policy in the works seems to effectively place each in the TC anyway. So here they are, individual Trash-Compactors for each article.SinisterSamurai 05:27, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

  1. For the longest time, I was completely opposed to having articles on any lightsabers. But then Tommy did a great job with Lumiya's lightwhip, and others could easily follow. Then I realized that many lightsabers - if not all of them - are unique items, many with interesting histories. And lastly, I remembered an article we have on the Bimkall sector - something that doesn't even exist in-universe. If we have an article on a nonexistent sector, then I see no reason why we shouldn't have articles on lightsabers. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Strongly per Tranner. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:43, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Consider me a recent convert. Chack Jadson (Talk) 18:55, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. CC7567 (talk) 18:59, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Notable enough because of the whole bifurcating cyclical-ignition pulse...thingy.--Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 19:07, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Borsk Fey'lya Talk 14:33, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Grunny (talk) 00:29, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  8. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 00:34, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Hi there. I'm voting keep (again). ~ SavageBob 02:48, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Keep. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:28, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  11. The article in its current form is horrible, but there's unique information. Havac 08:59, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  12. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:56, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  13. --TK-299 (Click Here) Imperial Emblem 12:57, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Kill

  1. SinisterSamurai 05:27, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Definitely, kill. JangFett (Talk) 05:33, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. NAYAYEN:TALK 07:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Imperialles 07:58, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 14:34, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  6. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 17:56, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  7. The pulse article is good enough—Fisto's article will surely link to that. Graestan(Talk) 19:11, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 21:58, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  9. It's not the only lightsaber that can operate underwater, therefore it's not unique. Kill. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 18:06, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  10. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 23:06, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
  11. --Vandar Tokare42 (Talk to the hand) 23:07, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Comment

This one can be covered under Kit Fisto and Bifurcating cyclical-ignition pulse. Being able to ignite underwater isn't unique, IU.SinisterSamurai 06:37, May 15, 2010 (UTC)