Forum:TC:Nat Skywalker's lightsaber

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Nat 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 delete. 1358 (Talk) 12:46, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

Nat Skywalker's lightsaber (talk - history - links - logs)

Is there any need for this article? It is just one more of those dull lightsaber articles without any content. It was Rawk's lightsaber, nothing more. Besides, Rawk's featured article already says it all there is to know about the lightsaber.

Delete

  1. Winterz (talk) 12:45, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  2. We can dream, can't we? Menkooroo (talk) 14:19, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  3. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 14:25, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  4. Sigh. As if there's a chance this will succeed before the fetishists get wind of it. You know Freud would have had a field day with the Jedi Order. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:34, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  5. Cade Calrayn GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit 14:39, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  6. CC7567 (talk) 14:45, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  7. Nothing particularly unique/notable and not significant in any part of the story, so delete. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 15:21, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  8. —Cal JediInfinite Empire (Personal Comm Channel) 18:45, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  9. I actually saw this the other night and planned to put it up. If all there is to say about it is "It was X's lightsaber," it absolutely shouldn't have an article. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 19:24, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  10. Plinkett was right, this is all Lucas' fault. DD97Which bear is best? 22:01, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  11. DELETE! 501st dogma(talk) 22:02, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  12. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 22:06, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
  13. Per Grunny, and slap the author in the face with the LG because that's decidedly not how we do Appearances sections. —MJ— Holocomm Friday, August 31, 2012, 01:55 UTC
  14. If this is how the article will remain, with no more relevant or important details, i agree with deletion. Michael Finnie (talk) 17:29, September 1, 2012 (UTC)
  15. Ayrehead02 (talk) 12:34, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
  16. Cumulonimbus Cloud (ℳeeting ℛoom) 22:23, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

Comments

  • Since I am reminded of the previous attempts to remove lightsaber articles of any size, I am going to simply say "meh". JangFett (Talk) 19:43, August 28, 2012 (UTC)