Forum:TC:Savage Opress's body armor

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) 09:51, October 16, 2012 (UTC)

Savage Opress's body armor (talk - history - links - logs)

Basically, this article was deleted some months ago after a discussion on the talk page. The reasoning was that it was simply not notable enough and belonged in the Equipment section of Savage Opress. Now, the original creator of the article has disputed this and as such, I've restored the page and brought this to a TC thread. 1358 ^(Talk) 20:27, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Delete and merge with Savage Opress

1. Looking at the article, it pretty much could be merged with Sah-vage's article. I don't see why it needs to remain separate as it's not that important/notable. JangFett ^(Talk) 01:52, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
2. There's nothing that makes it unique or notable enough to have its own article. Cade Calrayn 01:58, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
3. DarthRevan1173 (Long live Lord Revan) 16:57, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
4. If Boba Fett's or Darth Krayt's armors do not merit having their own articles, certainly the armor Savage is wearing doesn't either. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 04:48, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
5. Someone wearing durasteel cobbled together from a crashed starship hull would be wearing armor that no one else wore. Someone using a gun they modified, even from a manufactured base, would be using a gun that no one else would be seen using. It's just armor. Big Deal. NaruHina ^Talk 18:15, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
   • And resisting blaster fire is not a notable feature of armor. Armor does that unless the plot says otherwise. NaruHina ^Talk 18:17, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
6. Menkooroo (talk) 00:19, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
7. My notability line for character-specific equipment is drawn at lightsabers, and even then, it's deletionist. Mother Talzin states in Book of Sith: Secrets from the Dark Side that the armor is available to all warriors who have survived the Crucible, meaning that it's not a unique armor set. I would be willing to have an article for the general armor, but not this specific set. CC7567 ^(talk) 00:35, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
8. Per CC, although I somehow feel this would have survived had I created it....—Tommy 9281 Thursday, October 4, 2012, 00:45 UTC
9. I'm Corellian Premier, and I approve this option. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 01:11, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
10. CC's demonstration of non-uniqueness has convinced me. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 02:08, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
11. Per CC and CP.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 02:18, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
12. Per the evidence brought up by CC that this is not unique. An article for the general type of armor would not be inappropriate, though. —MJ— _{Council Chambers} Thursday, October 4, 2012, 19:25 UTC
13. Per CC. 1358 ^(Talk) 19:51, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
14. IFYLOFD ^{(Floyd's crib)} 20:34, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
15. 501st dogma^(talk) 21:39, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
16. Per CC Winterz (talk) 19:16, October 5, 2012 (UTC)
17. Per CC. --Hunterj | My talk 16:46, October 6, 2012 (UTC)
18. ARTICLES FOR ALL THE THINGS — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 21:48, October 15, 2012 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep it. --XXLVenom998 (talk) 16:47, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
2. See discussion comment below. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 18:47, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
3. I'll admit, I flip-flopped on this a bit. But no one else except Savage has been seen wearing this armor. It had unique properties, such as being resistant to blasters and impervious to acid rain. I wouldn't be all that broken up if it had to be merged, but really per our own guidelines for a number of things like this, it seems like the armor would be notable enough for its own article. Bella'Mia (talk) 05:03, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
4. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 01:09, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Before I consider this, if the original discussion was on the talk page, then can that please be undeleted? I would like to see the original arguments from both sides for myself. —MJ— _{Council Chambers} Monday, October 1, 2012, 01:49 UTC

• Article temporarily restored for reference here. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:37, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going to quote Naru's comment from the article's talk page. "There is a world of difference between an unidentified character and a suit of armor. A character is a person. Opress's armor is an item that only he has ever been seen wearing. It's not even a standard set like the clone armors." This is precisely why it should be kept. It is a unique piece of armor in that is resistant to acid raid and also blaster bolts - as evidenced in "Revival - and he is the only one to wear armor like it." - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 18:47, October 1, 2012 (UTC)
• Per CC's reference to the information Book of Sith: Secrets from the Dark Side provides, I'd be in favor of merging what information we have in this article into an overarching "Nightbrother armor" article. Bella'Mia (talk) 01:26, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not specifically stated that it's only given to the Nightbrothers. While we haven't seen it on the Nightsisters, something like "Dathomirian armor" might have to serve as the name instead. CC7567 ^(talk) 02:12, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable. Could we just move the article to that, and rewrite the information as needed? Or can a different voting option be added? Or just make the new article outright? Bella'Mia (talk) 02:09, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
      • I'd go with making a new article. This article was specifically about an individual set of armor, whereas the article being proposed here is about the type of armor, categorically. I'd start fresh, but that's just me. —Gethralkin^Hyperwave 03:55, October 8, 2012 (UTC)