Forum:TC:Ship classification

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 Delete outright. jSarek 11:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ship classification (talk - history - links - logs)

With all due respect to those who have worked on this page, it is almost completely original research sprinkled with fanon and really does not belong in the encyclopedia. Graestan^(Talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete outright

1. Graestan^(Talk) 19:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
2. --Darth tom (Imperial Intelligence) 19:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Agreed. Kill with fire. Tyber ^{J. Kenobi's Droid} 19:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Though very interesting, it is mostly fanon.—Darthtyler ^(Talk) 19:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Darthtyler. Mauser^Comlink 19:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
6. Per Grae. It may also be worth noting that the "Alternative System" section is 100% game mechanics from the WOTC RPG. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
7. Delete everything. Toprawa and Ralltiir 23:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
8. Grunny ^(Talk) 23:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
9. If someone could recreate it properly and without OR and fanon, then I think it would be an asset. Until then, delete. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 20:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
10. Delete. If someone with the skills recreates it later, great, with the way it is now, it would be easier to do that from scratch. --Eyrezer 02:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
11. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
12. Voting here only slightly reluctantly. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Jujiggum) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
13. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep the WEG system, which is discussed in an in-universe manner within those sources; also keep any other information that is directly attested in (and cited from) a non-game-mechanical standpoint. Relegate citable game mechanics to the Bts section, in a much reduced form. Discard the rest. jSarek 09:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
2. The fact that it's currently agenda-fanon-ridden does not mean that the article itself should be deleted when there's legitimate canonical information on the subject. Keep and clean up. Havac 20:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
   • It should be noted that there is precedent for deleting a notable article with canonical information due to be filled with OR/fanon. As Fiolli said, if someone can rewrite it later in a better way without the OR/fanon, then recreate it at that time. The article as it currently stands, though, is all kinds of horrible and needs to go—fast. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 02:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
     • The difference is, due to the nature of the Clone Wars timeline mess, that one couldn't be immediately fixed. There have been even less problematic articles that we deleted because they were chock-full-o'-fanon, because it was more work to figure out what was real and what wasn't than it was to start from scratch. I don't believe that's the case here - the WEG system at the very least is citable. jSarek 15:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Per jSarek. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Per jSarek. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Darn jSarek always says it so well. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Per jSarek and Havac. Cyfiero 06:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Does anyone actually know how much of the article is the WEG system and how much is fanon? Is it worth cleaning up the article or would it be easier to recreate? Cylka^-talk- 03:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)