Forum:TC:Star Wars Fanon Wiki

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Star Wars Fanon Wiki

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 and redirect to Fanon. jSarek 06:46, April 29, 2010 (UTC)

ATTENTION!

If you came to this page to vote because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that your vote may be subject to deletion. Recruiting votes in this manner is considered vote farming, and it is against Wookieepedia policy.

While you can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here even if you are new, there are certain requirements that must be met in order to actually cast a vote. Specifically, you must have made at least 50 main namespace (article) edits in the six months prior to the start of the vote. This requirement has been in place since 2014. Please see Wookieepedia:Voting eligibility policy for more information.

Site-wide policy and procedure is determined by our Consensus policy, so please take a look at it if you have not already.

Please sign your posts by using ~~~~ at the end of your posts. May the Force be with you!

Star Wars Fanon Wiki (talk - history - links - logs)

Site does not seem to fulfill any of the criteria of Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects, other than for content. The only argument I can see for this article's continued existence is to educate fanon-oriented users. However, the fanon article already does a good job of that. So why keep this policy-breaching article around? We can still link to SWFanon when necessary, but I do not think chronicling the site falls within the scope of Wookieepedia. --Imperialles 00:54, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Keep

  • I see no reason why we should delete this page. The Fanon wiki has a large following and is a relatively large wiki. I mean, this page is a moderately popular Star Wars fan website, deleting this would almost be like deleting the articles on the Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia, Jedi Council Forums, or even Wookieepedia. Bonbondoodle 01:13, April 12, 2010 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: Banned for sockpuppetry. -- Graestan(Talk) 02:04, April 12, 2010 (UTC))
    • Wrong. All three of your examples pass one or more of the recognition criteria of our policy. SWFanon does not. --Imperialles 01:16, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Delete and redirect to Fanon

  1. Imperialles 00:54, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  2. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:27, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  3. Thefourdotelipsis 01:28, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  4. Delightful. A vanity page, really, anyhow. Graestan(Talk) 01:31, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  5. No official or mainstream recognition, and the only evidence of fan recognition (TFN's link to them in their fan-fic forum) isn't sufficient for notability IMO. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 01:39, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  6. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Toprawa and Ralltiir 01:41, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  7. Defaults to delete per policy. I love policy. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 02:06, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  8. JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 02:13, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  9. Pretty good article, but policy is policy. -- 1358 (Talk) 05:03, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  10. Nix then nix its article link from the fanon article, otherwise we'd have a circular redirect. Trak Nar Ramble on 05:49, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  11. Per above plus the article was long ago exported to the Star Wars Fanpedia. Grunny (talk) 09:17, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  12. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 11:16, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  13. Delete, redirect to Fanon and additionally link to the mentioned SW Fanpedia article. Tyber J. Kenobi's Droid 14:19, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  14. Jonjedigrandmaster Jedi symbol (We seed the stars) 23:07, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
  15. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 15:39, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
  16. !markov Fanon JangFett (Talk) 15:42, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
  17. Fails to meet the notability requirements, although some of the information should be preserved in a paragraph on the fanon article. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 01:17, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  18. CC7567 (talk) 01:19, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
  19. Per Tyber. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:12, April 14, 2010 (UTC)