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 no consensus. —MJ— War Room 19:03, September 7, 2013 (UTC)
Rendezvous beacons
- Rendezvous Beacon A-31 (talk - history - links - logs)
- Rendezvous Beacon B-12 (talk - history - links - logs)
- Rendezvous Beacon C-73 (talk - history - links - logs)
- Rendezvous Beacon D-44 (talk - history - links - logs)
- Rendezvous Beacon E-85 (talk - history - links - logs)
- Rendezvous Beacon F-46 (talk - history - links - logs)
- Rendezvous Beacon G-77 (talk - history - links - logs)
- Rendezvous Beacon H-68 (talk - history - links - logs)
All of these rendezvous beacon articles are essentially the same except for the individual associated with them and the three character alphanumeric code. I believe that individually these articles do not deserve an article, and that they should all be merged into a single Rendezvous beacon article. There is no difference between each beacon, and the individual associated with each beacon can be noted in the BTS of a combined article along with the information common to each.--Exiled Jedi 
(Greetings) 05:14, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
Merge into Rendezvous beacon
- As nominator.--Exiled Jedi
(Greetings) 05:14, August 22, 2013 (UTC) - Trip391 (talk) 05:15, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the individual that appears with each beacon is randomized, actually. Cade
Calrayn 05:17, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- I did at least four of the eight bounties twice or more and each individual corresponds to a particular beacon. LOST-Malachi (talk) 08:07, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- Nice, neat, and concise. Everything all in one place. Trak Nar Ramble on 05:18, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- Menkooroo (talk) 05:42, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
Keep
- Canonical proper name = article. That's the rule I've always gone by, and rule 1 of the proposed notability policy would dictate keeping this anyway on exactly those grounds. —MJ— Holocomm 06:40, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- I myself do not find them to be particularly notable or intersting in any way. However, they do have an individual designation each, making them distinct from one another. There's even something to say about them In-Universe, after distilling the game mechanics. If only we had some sort of notability policy in place that would unambiguously rule a subject notable or non-notable without endulging into personal opinions... LOST-Malachi (talk) 08:07, August 22, 2013 (UTC)
- —Tommy 9281 Thursday, August 22, 2013, 12:05 UTC
- Ayrehead02 (talk) 22:26, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
- JangFett (Talk) 23:11, August 24, 2013 (UTC)
- They are given specific names so I'll have to go for keeping this one. Winterz (talk) 14:49, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
- Per MJ. ~Savage
15:28, August 26, 2013 (UTC) - 1358 (Talk) 20:45, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
- Supreme Emperor (talk) 03:45, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
