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) 15:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Romeo Treblanc's private viewing box (talk - history - links - logs)
"For Fuck's Sake" © Thefourdotelipsis - Sikon 10:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC) - just a vote, no reason given
- Why would we delete this? It looks okay to me, besides the usual "gallery". Chack Jadson Talk 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep or bust. KEJ 23:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- just a vote, no reason givenReason: it's there, it's canonical, it's significant in terms of the portrayers of the characters in the viewing box. KEJ 09:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC) - I agree with Chack Jadson and Unit 8311, Keep. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It serves no purpose that the Galaxies Opera House can't. Redundant as hell. Thefourdotelipsis 23:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, in case it wasn't clear. jSarek 23:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I understand wiping out sections of a ship with their own article because they were only divided thanks to game mechanics. But though this is a small section of a larger complex, it is unique IU and OOU and therefore deserves its own article. (And I don't think "For Fuck's Sake" is exactly a valid argument...) :P Wildyoda 03:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, useful IU information, and, more importantly, it isn't very significant IU, being entirely populated with characters A) played by ROTS crew and B) With backstories created by fans. QuentinGeorge 09:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if I agree with QG's reasoning that this box is somehow more of value than any of the others just because the fans were involved in creating the backstories. I agree about the actors being noteworthy, but isn't it enough to convey that in their respective articles? I actually don't care whether this article is deleted or not—I could go either way—but if it is to be kept, that gallery's gotta go. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Very much so. The gallery really doesn't do anything that adds to the article. Listing the patrons who were there for that single performance and linking to their respective articles should be sufficient. Wildyoda 01:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if I agree with QG's reasoning that this box is somehow more of value than any of the others just because the fans were involved in creating the backstories. I agree about the actors being noteworthy, but isn't it enough to convey that in their respective articles? I actually don't care whether this article is deleted or not—I could go either way—but if it is to be kept, that gallery's gotta go. Gonk (Gonk!) 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why are votes being stricken for lacking in commentary? Nowhere on the trash compactor page is there a clause specifying that a vote must include a justification. Besides, the reasoning should be clear in this particular venue. Obviously a keep vote is interested in in the article remaining in existence for the purpose of bettering the encyclopedia, while a delete vote feels that the article would better serve the encyclopedia by no longer existing. --School of Thrawn 101 10:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's a remnant of the stupid system Sikon unilaterally imposed upon the Wook some time ago. KEJ 11:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, because it's notable and canon. And I despise Sikon's system wholeheartedly. Atarumaster88
(Talk page) 15:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
