Forum:TC:Luke Skywalker's lightsaber

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Luke Skywalker'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 Keep. Grunny (talk) 09:36, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Luke Skywalker'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 05:45, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

  1. If a unique item exists in Star Wars canon, it deserves an article. If a visitor to our wiki wishes to look up specific information about Luke Skywalker's second lightsaber, which they most definitely will at some point, they should have the option of reading an article singularly dedicated to that task without having to wade through the mountain of extraneous text that is the Luke Skywalker article. Just because an article is currently crap and is severely in need of expansion doesn't merit deletion. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:04, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Strongly per Tope. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:17, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Per Tope. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 18:41, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Consider me a recent convert. Chack Jadson (Talk) 18:56, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  5. CC7567 (talk) 18:58, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Its notable, just needs expansion and a better image.--Dr. Kermit(Complain.) 19:25, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Borsk Fey'lya Talk 14:25, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  8. Per Tope. Grunny (talk) 23:51, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
  9. The special qualities are that Luke built it, we know when, where, why, and how, and those things should be covered in an article. ~ SavageBob 02:48, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  10. The article needs to be expanded, but it is certainly notable enough and with enough of a history and unique information to keep. Havac 08:58, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
  11. There is enough unique information to justify this article --Jinzler 13:28, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Per "pick-one-above". -- 1358 (Talk) 17:20, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Needs a bit of fixing, but no need to delete. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 10:46, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Same verdict as everyone else; fix it, don't lose it. Jensaarai 02:45, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
  15. --TK-299 (Click Here) Imperial Emblem 12:59, May 26, 2010 (UTC)
  16. I've been going back and forth on this one. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:24, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
  17. Per Tope, extremely notable. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:50, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Kill

  1. SinisterSamurai 05:45, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Eh, despite its fame, I really don't see how anything on this one can't be said in a subsection in Luke's article. Besides that, the article is crap, which I'm sure can be touched up, but for now I can't see why it needs to exist. Xicer9Atgar(Combadge) 14:42, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  3. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 17:59, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  4. All relevant information fits perfectly well in Luke's article. --Imperialles 18:06, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
  5. I don't see its special qualities. Graestan(Talk) 19:20, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
    Weak kill. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 15:27, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per Xicer and Imp. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 18:12, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
  7. --Vandar Tokare42 (Talk to the hand) 23:13, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Komment

What is this i dont even SinisterSamurai 05:45, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a single article to cover all of Luke's sabers; the shoto, any others that are presently slipping my mind... Dangerdan97 23:45, May 16, 2010 (UTC)