Forum:TC:Rapid Entry By Jedi

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Rapid Entry By Jedi

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. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Rapid Entry By Jedi (talk - history - links - logs)

Well, if "maximum efficiency" was "(at best) a one-book in-joke," even though that phrase was used by cold, soulless killer robots, this GAG in-joke is most certainly not notable enough for an article. I realize it's a GAN, but I nevertheless don't believe it merits an article. I will quote Unit 8311 when I say "Who's honestly going to go onto this Wiki and look for this article? Not necessary." If we don't have articles for all the one-liners that have jumped from the OT to the prequels, literature, and animated series, this one is a real dinger. Graestan(Talk) 03:00, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Delete outright. This isn't even notable enough as slang to add to any compilation page. Graestan(Talk) 03:00, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
    I suppose, based upon precedent. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 03:47, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  2. Not as funny as Sith Peanut Butter. SinisterSamurai 04:27, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Yes, of course. --DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:14, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

  1. I don't see the harm, and this one's debatable enough to warrant a keep from me. I would be more open to deleting this if we extended the deletion policy to all one-use aliases, but we don't. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 05:49, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  2. If it goes, so does its listing in the random GA, its mention in the DYK, and anywhere else that it has a place. And with it goes all the work that was put into it to make it into a GA. And you wish to rob the author of that? Seems like a needless thing. As Trayus said, what's the harm? There are certainly countless of other, shorter, more-pointless articles that could warrant such scrutiny. Trak Nar Ramble on 06:05, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  3. The way I see it, it's a unique term—albeit one used jokingly among only a few characters—for a rather unique method of action, and the article itself is apparently written well enough that it's worthy of being a Good Article. I don't see any reason to delete at all. Bella'Mia 06:40, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  4. A term, albeit a rather informal one, that is consistently used on more than one occasion for a specific tactic. I don't see how this is any different than an article on any other tactic. If you feel the name is too informal to be "real," then tag the article with Template:Nickname, but there's no reason to delete it outright. jSarek 06:47, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  5. Per jSarek. The tactic seems to be repeated and unique, and it was given a nickname by troopers. Therefore, it deserves an article. Grunny (talk) 07:36, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Per above. --Tm_T (Talk) 07:38, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Per above, especially jSarek. —Master Jonathan New Jedi Order (Jedi Council Chambers) 18:00, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
  8. It's a known tactic with a silly name. Keep. ToRsO bOy 09:20, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  9. -- 1358 (Talk) 13:09, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  10. NAYAYEN:TALK 15:00, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per jS. - Lord Hydronium 21:11, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Sorry Grae, but you can't assume nobody is going to look for a somewhat perverted sounding tactic, and it's a GAN. -- Riffsyphon1024 09:56, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with jSarek and ToRsO bOy it is a known tactic. --Master Liz 03:08, August 16, 2010 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Fewer than 50 mainspace edits -- Tm_T (Talk) 12:28, August 17, 2010 (UTC))
  13. Per jSarek and ToRsO bOy. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 03:12, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  14. It's a combat maneuver that has a name. Should be treated the same as any of the lightsaber marks of contact (e.g., Cho mai) or other martial arts moves (e.g., Juzzian armlock). Vote keep. —fodigg BlackRebelStarbird (talk) | 19:40, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Weak keep. *sighs* — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 02:59, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I'm not voting because of the obvious interest conflict, but to answer the "Who's honestly going to go onto this Wiki and look for this article? Not necessary" statement/quote, I would, and did. That's how I found the article in the first place, and from there decided to make a status run of it.—Tommy 9281 21:51, August 6, 2010 (UTC)