Forum:TC:Soulcalibur IV

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Soulcalibur IV

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) 03:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Soulcalibur IV (talk - history - links - logs)

Why is this here? It's not a LucasArts project and not under the Star Wars license, and, unless I'm mistaken, its only Star Wars connection is the cameos by Vader and Yoda. If we keep this article, does this mean we get to make an article for every cameo that has ever been on the Simpsons, etc? The only thing linked to it, also, is the main and news pages (and some random userpages), which could easily be made links to Wikipedia. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Arguments for Deletion

  • Pointless article based on a cameo by two Star Wars characters in a non-Star Wars product. DELETE. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 03:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and place relevant info in List of references to Star Wars in video games.Muuuuuurgh 03:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguments for Keeping

  • We have dozens of articles on clearly non-canon but notable works with appearances from Star Wars characters and concepts: The Muppet Show, Defeat the Dark Side, Book of Imperial Shuttle Plans: Cygnus Spaceworks, etc. I'd say this is notable enough to keep. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Product is confirmed to contain Star Wars content (albeit noncanon content) legally licensed by Lucasfilm. Reeks of keepworthiness. jSarek 03:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Non-canon? Yes. Licensed by Lucasfilm? Also, yes. Star Wars characters? Yes. Keep, per Silly Dan. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's licensed. Also, the article will be a "bug zapper," so to speak, for annoying, moronic anons &c. Graestan(Talk) 05:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is licensed by Lucasarts as confirmed here. - JMAS 01:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for obvious reasons. KEJ 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Begrudgingly, keep. Master Aban Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 23:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep with the caveat that we will bahleet with extreme prejudice the inevitable flood of articles about the previous games, Cervantes, etc. Gonk (Gonk!) 01:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should just make a bunch of redirects for those other characters? —Silly Dan (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Point 1: It involves Star Wars characters. Point 2: we aren't trying to delete our article on Spaceballs, despite the fact that it does not contain any direct cameos. ~Roger Roger~ Home of the B1s 18:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There's two Star Wars characters in the game, so Keep. -- Cato Neimoidia 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

I've struck my oppose vote, as I now have a verified link (courtesy of JMAS) that LucasArts is involved. Originally, when I started the TC, there was no external link or sourcing that involved LucasArts at all. That being said, I can't really vote to keep the article and be pleased with myself, so striking'll have to do. Not that it really matters :P. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 23:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)