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; insufficient voter participation. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 18:01, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
SuperShadow (talk - history - links - logs - delete - protect)
Technically, this is the fourth nomination, as it was also previously done under the votes for deletion. While once a featured article, I don't think now it even meets the requirements for a good article. Things have changed a lot since 2010, when the article was last placed in the trash compactor, which ended as no consensus. As follows:
- Does the article or subject have any reference to Star Wars canon or provide any material that might be interest to Star Wars projects?: No. Not only does it have nothing to do with Star Wars canon, it was specifically denounced as containing false material unauthorized by Lucasfilm.
- Does the article meet the notability requirements?: It fails the content requirement on two counts. First, it no longer exists and is only available through an archive. Second, even when it did exist, the content was of marginal interest since it was fictitious. The recognition requirement is the only possible lifeline that I see. The site was briefly acknowledged by Lucasfilm / Pablo Hidalgo, only to state that it was not in any way officially sanctioned. If there was any mainstream media recognition, I'm not aware of it. And whatever fan recognition there may must have been, if it was ever enough to meet high standards of evidence, is gone now. The site is toast. Rumors from SuperShadow are not circulating anymore, the site is well forgotten. —Unsigned comment by ProfessorTofty (talk • contribs)
Note: Just so this is clear to everyone, this article was previously kept via consensus in an earlier TC forum with a vote total of 33 users. Per Wookieepedia:Consensus, at least 33 users will need to contribute a vote here in order to delete this article and therefore overturn the earlier decision. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 06:00, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
Delete
- And end this shadow over the Star Wars galaxy. ProfessorTofty
MishaC (talk) 15:20, November 1, 2014 (UTC)(Vote struck, reason: Per policy: does not meet requirements -- Brandon Rhea(talk) 15:38, November 1, 2014 (UTC))
- On the grounds that official de-recognition mightn't really count as official recognition, no evidence of mainstream recognition outside of the fandom is shown, fan recognition is limited to recognition as an unreliable source by the previous decade's fans, and a lot of nonsense isn't necessarily non-trivial content. Might be worth keeping as a redirect to fanon or something. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:43, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
- I see where Brandon is coming from, but I feel keeping it may have the opposite effect; it may even give him some sense of validation. As Silly Dan said, redirecting to fanon would be good, because it will let anyone searching for supershadow to be instantly shown that he was in no way official, and people won't have to read the article to see that (even though Brandon was able to cut out a lot of fluff a few weeks ago). Trip391 (talk) 16:44, November 2, 2014 (UTC)
- IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 03:36, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Per Trip. Stake black msg 03:53, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Cade
Calrayn 22:20, November 5, 2014 (UTC)
Keep
- I still see SuperShadow information out there sometimes. A page labeling it as false can be helpful, and SuperShadow is obviously notable. - Brandon Rhea(talk) 15:09, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
- If the fake information is still floating around, then keeping the page serves a valid purpose per Brandon. —MJ— Comlink 03:25, November 14, 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
"Does the article or subject have any reference to Star Wars canon or provide any material that might be interest to Star Wars projects?" isn't a requirement in Wookieepedia:Notability of fan projects. If it were considered the main requirement (and perhaps it should! Anyone care to put it to the CT?) only the 501st Legion, TheForce.Net, the R2 builders club, and a handful of others would qualify. —Silly Dan (talk) 18:43, November 1, 2014 (UTC)
- An interesting idea. I actually brought it up because it seemed like it had been mentioned before in relation to deletion discussions, but perhaps that was a different context. ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:56, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
Redirect?
Further to Brandon's point about SuperShadow info still being mistaken for official information, and the need to differentiate between it and licensed material, would an option to redirect to Wookieepedia:Attribution (or other appropriate policy) be a better option, with notation on how SuperShadow should not, in any way, be used within Wookieepedia articles? - Sir Cavalier of One
(Squadron channel) 03:48, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea. We already link to the SuperShadow page on about fanon. Perhaps it could simply be stated that such material, like other fanon, is not allowed. ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:56, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
33 vote requirement
- Understandable. We'll just have to see what we can do, then. ProfessorTofty (talk) 06:56, November 3, 2014 (UTC)
- I really think this requirement should be reconsidered. It was fine when the the rule was implemented back in 2007, but the size of the community has since shrunk somewhat, and that effectively renders several of our past consensus decisions virtually impossible to overturn, even if there is a pressing reason why they need to be overturned. Perhaps an amendment limiting application of that rule to consensuses within the past year or two years would be appropriate, but that's a discussion for another forum. —MJ— Comlink 03:25, November 14, 2014 (UTC)