Forum:TC:Star Dudes

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Star Dudes

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 No consensus; article kept. Toprawa and Ralltiir 06:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Star Dudes (talk - history - links - logs)

I think it's not notable. What do you think? MauserComlink 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kill it

  1. MauserComlink 15:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 16:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. A quick glance at the article's Wikipedia page shows that it seems to meet our notability guidelines, at least in terms of national media coverage, but I still believe Wookieepedia is not the place for every fan content project, and so I shamelessly vote to delete. I still say that if people want to keep this stuff, we can and should create a Star Wars Fan Project Wiki, just like we did for the Merchandise Wiki. Toprawa and Ralltiir 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Yub, Yub, Commander! Fan, who wrote a databank entry or has a character named after him, is notable. Fan, who maintains some website, or shot a fanfilm, or simply cosplays - is not. MauserComlink 16:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. I remember this going round in emails back in the day. Nevertheless, extremely per Toprawa. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
    Kill. Kill kill kill. KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!!!! -- Darth Culator (Talk) 18:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 00:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Ataru's idea below sounds worth pursuing if anyone is interested. Chack Jadson (Talk) 00:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it

  1. As said above, its Wikipedia entry shows it passes the "media coverage" portion of Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects. If people want to tighten that policy, I think it's better to bring it up on the CT, and then speedily delete any fan project articles which don't pass whatever stricter rules are approved. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Completely per Silly Dan. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 06:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. Per Silly Dan. If you don't like the rules on notability of fan projects, suggest changes to those rules, don't just ignore them. jSarek 09:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. Per Dan. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 13:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Sounds like "an end run around the system" to me. Dangerdan97 15:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. While I don't think it's sufficiently non-notable to delete, I want to point out that getting media coverage can cause an article to be kept despite failing other notability requirements; it does not mandate that it be kept. Our notability policy is very much a set of guidelines, not hard criteria. Havac 18:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
    Good point. (Maybe that's a starting point for tightening the policy?) —Silly Dan (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. Per Silly Dan. Furthermore, I think that Tope has a good idea in that a Star Wars Fan Project Wiki should be started by those that are interested in articles about fan projects. Cylka-talk- 03:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 05:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. Per pass of requirements. I would support a Star Wars Fan Project Wiki (SWFP). -- Riffsyphon1024 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. Epic meh. For the record, there is a SWFans Wiki that's largely abandoned. I'm sure some people could take it over and add real content to it instead of useless stuff about fanon that's there. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 15:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    Per Silly Dan, and per the fact that I'm a hyperinclusionist, however, if someone can add a plot section (I would, but I don't trust fan videos), that would be really nice. --GungansPWN 22:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Single-issue voter)
  11. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 06:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Dangerdan97 sort of has a point. Though we have no policy that says the Inquest articles merit deletion and we do have a policy that makes this page at least debatable. So I vote per myself on something similar but more clearly notable. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 04:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)