Forum:TC:Savage Opress's lightsaber

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. 1358 ^(Talk) 12:08, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Savage Opress's lightsaber (talk - history - links - logs)

How is this even remotely notable? This whole article is literally just an abbreviated bio of Savage.

Delete

1. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 13:55, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
2. Never give up the dream. Menkooroo (talk) 14:00, January 8, 2013 (UTC)
3. Delete by all means.—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 14:43, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
4. 1358 ^(Talk) 14:44, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
5. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 15:02, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
6. CC7567 ^(talk) 19:22, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
7. Per DigiFluid's response to Riff below. —MJ— _{War Room} 20:38, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
8. PersonalIndividual lightsabers are fine having their own article as long as there's something to tell about the lightsaber, not the user of it. – Tm_T@Wookieepedia:~$ 20:50, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
9. Casting a token vote against articles on personal lightsabers without histories yet again. NaruHina ^Talk 20:52, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
10. JangFett ^(Talk) 23:36, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
11. No personal lightsabers. Stake black ^msg 01:00, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
12. Cade Calrayn 01:20, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
13. No individual TCW lightsabers. 501st dogma^(talk) 20:06, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Keep

1. Disagree. This article could use a rewrite, and that is no reason for deletion. See Category:Personal lightsabers if you really feel the need to delete lightsabers on the grounds of notability. I do not understand reasoning for notability on a wiki where we have articles on the smallest seemingly insignificant things (that might be non-notable on another wiki). This lightsaber is no less notable than that of Darth Vader's. It has seen much action and was the murder weapon of countless beings. If it exists, (and especially if it's been seen this much) we article it. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:28, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
   • I do feel the need to delete lightsaber articles on grounds of notability. It's one thing if the sword has a notable history of its own—Anakin's second lightsaber belonging to him to end the Jedi and Clone Wars, then being a relic in Kenobi's hut, before being owned by Luke till it fell down Cloud City, then passed on to Mara, etc.—but in the case of this, or the sabers of the Gathering younglings, or all the other blades that literally have no other notability or article description than 'character x occasionally swung it around,' I think it's completely daft and utterly pointless to have articles for them. We have Equipment sections on character pages for a reason: to include their gear which has no notability of its own. That's exactly what this (and many other) lightsaber articles are. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 20:24, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
2. DarthRevan1173 (Long live Lord Revan) 20:39, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
3. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 13:37, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
4. Absolutely. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 00:55, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
5. Can't believe we got this far. Maybe we should merge the whole Wookieepedia to one article. Deleteing this article is just nonsense. Per Riffsyphon1024. --XXLVenom998 ^{(Surprise me!)} 17:45, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
6. With future Clone Wars material undoubtedly yet to be released, more information regarding such a notable character's lightsaber is sure to turn up! We wouldn't delete Darth Maul's lightsaber. This is Darth Maul's brother for Sith sake. Keep it! Rokkur Shen (talk) 04:07, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
   • Opress is dead. There's not going to be that much more content on him. Cade Calrayn 04:27, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
     • @$#%& spoilers. That's what I get for letting the season five episodes collect on the DVR without watching them... :P (not your fault, Cade) —MJ— ^{Jedi Council Chambers} 05:31, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
     • :| Thank you, Cade. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:55, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
     • rlynao. Fear not, guys. It happened in the Death Sentence comic, so it's not a spoiler for the show. He's still in there. NaruHina ^Talk 05:59, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
7. As a deletionist, this strikes me as awkward but my opinion and Riffs match and I support the keeping of it. The article could certainly need some serious work but there's a certain notability to his lightsaber, even though the article doesn't mention any of that. In fact deleting it, wouldn't make that much of a difference to me, considering what is currently written there. A fresh new article could be a better approach, but heck, I'll just stand by the "Keep" and let the rest develop eheh.Winterz (talk) 19:40, January 24, 2013 (UTC)
8. Commander Code-8 ^{G'day, mate} 11:07, January 27, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

And as long as we're on the subject, some more useless and utterly non-notable articles:

• Byph's lightsaber
• Ganodi's lightsaber
• Katooni's lightsaber
• Petro's lightsaber
• Zatt's lightsaber

• Just so this is clear, is this TC only covering Savage's lightsaber, or all these lightsabers?—Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 02:38, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
  • Good to be clear: this particular TC is only for the Savage lightsaber. The point of putting these in discussion was simply to keep the general subject of non-notable lightsaber articles alive. Apologies for the confusion. This TC is only regarding Savage Opress's lightsaber. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 14:08, January 9, 2013 (UTC)
    • Same here as above. Don't delete any of these, they cover their own topic. --XXLVenom998 ^{(Surprise me!)} 17:47, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
      • They`ll be next! 501st dogma^(talk) 20:07, January 20, 2013 (UTC)