Forum:TC:Nobu 3

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 keep.—Silly Dan (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobu 3 (talk - history - links - logs)

This article is exactly the same as the plain Nobu article so what's the point of having this or the Nobu 1,2, or 4.Darth Nezzera(In umbris potestas est)Sith Emblem

Delete

  1. Darth Nezzera(In umbris potestas est)Sith Emblem
  2. User:Admiral jolyon This is Admiral jolyon here. I was the one who created the article Nobu and the reason I a agree on deleting all four articles of Nubu group is this: There are groups of ships in numbers over 10 all called one name such as Athega and Bira. What I say is "what is the point in creating over 10 articles that just virtually say the same thing when all the necessary data can be packed down"?

Keep

  1. Hobbes(Tiger's Lair) 03:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Keep. Each ship is it's own entity, and as such deserve their own article since they're named. This isn't like the Unknown article name controversy. Greyman(Paratus) 03:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. Keep per common sense. Thefourdotelipsis 03:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. Keep per 4dot. -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 08:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Keep. Distinct, named entity. jSarek 22:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Keep What they all said. - JMAS 23:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. Ozzel 23:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per above. Unit 8311 19:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. Keep- it's canon. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 22:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. Keep. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments