Forum:TC:Unidentified B1 battle droid (gundark nest)

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. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 23:12, July 7, 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified B1 battle droid (gundark nest) (history - links - logs - delete - protect)

Similar to the Wookiee workers, this is a character in a real-time strategy game, and one of hundreds. The only distinguishing factor here is that the droid talks, but it's not even clear which droid is talking.

Delete

1. Cade Calrayn 13:01, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
2. ...really? Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 15:45, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
3. Chalk it up to gamemechanics. Corellian Premier^{The Force will be with you always} 16:48, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
4. this sets a bad precedent...praguepride ^(Talk) 17:05, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
5. Brandon, that shouldn't matter. Many CAs were deleted through this same TC process. JangFett ^(Talk) 02:03, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
6. Per the nom, we can't even be sure which droid is speaking, so the dialogue is irrelevant. And Brandon, GA or any other status is completely and totally irrelevant in the TC. None of the status requirements include "...be notable."

   Master Jonathan		Council Chambers
   18:30 UTC Sat		June 21, 2014

   • Sure it does. It says it needs to follow the policies on Wookieepedia, one of which is a notability policy. Now, you may very well be right about its notability, but the fact remains that there's an inconsistency here between this vote and the AgriCorps review of this page. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 06:07, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
     • Since you are correct that there is an inconsistency, I have placed an item on the Mofference agenda to resolve said inconsistency.

       Master Jonathan		Council Chambers
       22:33 UTC Sun		June 22, 2014

     • Actually, scratch that. There actually isn't an inconsistency here, because the notability policy does not cover individuals, including droids. This is because the community has never been able to come to a consensus on a defined policy for that type of article. Therefore, the notability policy is not even in play here, and in turn the article is not in violation of any GA requirements, so my original comment that the GA status is meaningless here stands.

       Master Jonathan		Council Chambers
       22:41 UTC Sun		June 22, 2014

7. Exiled Jedi (Greetings) 18:33, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
8. Tempted to vote keep, but if there was a squad of clones in a random battle scene and you heard someone yell "Look out!", that single clone shouldn't get an article if we don't know who it was that said it, and the actions of every clone that appeared weren't enough to make them noticeable. Sucks its GA though... Manoof (talk) 04:53, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
9. Trip391 (talk) 06:21, June 22, 2014 (UTC)

   --praguepride ^(Talk) 22:23, June 22, 2014 (UTC) (Vote struck, reason: Per policy: User already voted. -- Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 00:09, June 23, 2014 (UTC))

10. I think the points made about the GAN process here are a cop-out, but fair enough. If it's not relevant then it's not relevant. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 23:19, June 22, 2014 (UTC)
11. Stake black ^msg 14:39, June 27, 2014 (UTC)
12. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 05:33, June 30, 2014 (UTC)

Keep

#I'd consider this notable enough for an article considering it has a spoken line of dialogue. Add to that the fact that this passed a nomination from the community and the AgriCorps, and I vote strong keep. - Brandon Rhea^(talk) 21:59, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

1. 501st dogma^(talk) 22:08, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
2. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 09:49, June 21, 2014 (UTC)
3. KEJ (talk) 23:36, June 21, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• This article was brought to GA status twelve days ago. Seriously, if you want to kill articles it would save a lot of time for the writer and the reviewers if you announce your intention to delete this prior. This way, it leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth and it is really annoying. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 18:35, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
• I only noticed it today; I didn't wait for it go to GA. Cade Calrayn 18:42, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
• I know Cade. But then maybe some people should check new nominations for such things in the future. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 21:39, June 20, 2014 (UTC)
• A GA nominated for deletion... that does indeed seem a bit inconsistent. I fully understand Lee's resentment here. KEJ (talk) 23:50, June 21, 2014 (UTC)