Forum:TC:Lumiya's vibroblade

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Lumiya's vibroblade
This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was No consensus. JangFett (Talk) 16:27, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Lumiya's vibroblade (talk - history - links - logs)

What's up, boys and girls. The discussion over at Forum:SH:Notability policy draft is far from complete, but one of the issues that came up was the concept of status articles being deleted. As Mauser pointed out, it's happened before (Jean-Luc Picard was a Good article), and I think a point on which we can all agree is that FA/GA/CA status should not be a factor in whether or not an article is notable.

To demonstrate that point, I'm nominating for deletion a Comprehensive article whose existence has always bugged me. Lumiya uses a vibroblade on one occasion and it's notable enough to be "Lumiya's vibroblade?" Nahhhhh. The BTS asserts "It is the only time in Lumiya's history that she is shown in possession of a vibroblade," but brother, that ain't enough to make it notable. If it were, then we could create an article on "Luke Skywalker's lead pipe" if Luke hit somebody in the head with a lead pipe. Or "Leia Organa Solo's smoke grenade" if she carried a smoke grenade with her on a single mission. This article was created and CAnommed during the excitement of the weapons barn-burner, but with that hubbub long-dead, hopefully we can all see how non-notable this article is. Menkooroo (talk) 14:50, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Menkooroo (talk) 14:50, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Here's my rule of thumb: if the vibroblade is specifically mentioned in Star Wars: Legacy of the Force Round-Robin Interview, it may stay due to it having interesting and defined backstory. Otherwise, even if article stays, that sentence is irrelevant to it. On a related note, this is the only article on the interview I can think of, with exception of Insider articles. I won't push it now, but an article on a random interview seems unnecessary to me also. LOST-Malachi (talk) 15:22, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not mentioned. I just checked the interview and the quote is this: "But I enjoyed crazy Alema and Lumiya too-it was fascinating to write the scene with them together in Sacrifice, especially at how differently they handle disfigurement. I like the challenge of getting into characters I don't know all that well." The vibroblade is one small part of the scene in Sacrifice where they discuss disfigurement. Menkooroo (talk) 15:26, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  3. Replace "vibroblade" with "butter knife" and see if that makes a difference. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 15:53, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  4. After further consideration, I do not believe that this deserves an article.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 19:54, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Per Menk and CP. —MJ— Comlink 02:13, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
  6. While I tend to agree with the views of those users in opposition, in this specific case the existence of the article is slightly ridiculous from a notability perspective. --Jinzler (talk) 12:00, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Every single lightsaber we've ever deleted is more notable than this. jSarek (talk) 07:32, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
    • Just out of curiosity, which notable lightsaber got deleted?--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:04, August 20, 2013 (UTC)
      • That's a trick question. If we deleted them, it was because the community consensus was that they were NOT notable (which is my point about the vibroblade). That said, this year alone, we've deleted this, this, this, this, this, this, and these. jSarek (talk) 04:56, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
        • Why did Savage Opress's lightsaber get deleted? I noticed that the votes are Delete:13 and Keep:8. The ratio of consensus as stated in Wookieepedia:Consensus for 17 to 24 voters will need a 5 to 2 ratio. There is not a 5 to 2 ratio for that article to be deleted.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 16:29, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
          • It didn't. The TC page says no consensus, and the article still exists. 16:32, August 21, 2013 (UTC)
            • Oh, ok. I misunderstood because it was included in the list of things that were deleted this year that JSarek posted.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 01:35, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
              • Whoops, grabbed one too many. Thanks for pointing that out. jSarek (talk) 19:47, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Gotta agree. If a character uses something generic, their use of that generic thing belongs in the page on the generic thing, not in its own page. We once had Lumpy's stuffed bantha, but that got redirected at least... :) ~SavageBOB sig 15:26, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Keep

  1. It's mentioned by the author in the interview, and it's a well-written article that covers a unique item with context. And by your guys' own proposed notability policy, it stays. Only Rule 4 kinda affects this, and it's not a passing mention. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 14:54, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not a unique item --- it's an utterly generic vibroblade. I don't think Traviss actually mentions it in the interview either; the BTS claims "Traviss expressed fascination with her depiction of Lumiya and Alema Rar's interaction in Sacrifice, giving special attention to their differed perspectives on their various mutilations." If Traviss actually mentioned the vibroblade, then the BTS would explicitly say so; that BTS statement is barely even relevant to this article. And that the article is well-written is irrelevant to its notability. Also, don't be a slave to the proposed notability policy (it was only mentioned to segue into the idea of CAs being eligible for deletion) --- use your head. Is a generic, non-unique vibroblade that was used on a single occasion really worthy of its own article? We have an article on Shirt, but we won't make an article on "Chewbacca's shirt" if he wears a shirt on one occasion. Menkooroo (talk) 15:00, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
    I really don't see the big deal with all of this, otherwise per Cade.--Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 14:56, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  2. As I've said before, I don't understand the seeming obsession some people have with wanting to delete everything on Wookieepedia. We're a wiki, for crying out loud. We're supposed to have articles in it for people to read.—Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 15:40, August 16, 2013 (UTC)
  3. I really don't see the harm in keeping it. Some people could find it interesting, therefore I vote keep. Supreme Emperor (talk) 02:33, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
    Some people might find an article on Dinner at the Lars homestead interesting. But that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. —MJ— Training Room 02:41, August 17, 2013 (UTC)
  4. I'd have thought that the first sentence of the article sufficiently demonstrates notability, however large or small.—Tommy 9281 Sunday, August 18, 2013, 06:34 UTC
  5. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 22:32, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Trip391 (talk) 21:17, August 19, 2013 (UTC)
  7. I have to agree with Tommy JangFett (Talk) 16:57, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

  • This would have been more respectable had the listed reasons not been so overtly laden with personal opinion. But with no actual concrete policy currently in place to refer to, it seems that this article's fate will be decided by just that—the opinions of those saying either "yay" or "nay." *Pops popcorn*—Tommy 9281 Sunday, August 18, 2013, 06:33 UTC
    • I just want to note that I actually learned something new from this page, that is, that Lumiya had prosthetics limbs. That's cool! Thanks, trash compactor.--Richterbelmont10 (come in R2!) 21:12, August 19, 2013 (UTC)