Forum:TC:Unidentified blue-armored men

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 move to Gar Stazi's bodyguards.—Silly Dan (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Unidentified blue-armored men (talk - history - links - logs)

Keep

  1. They're canon. .... 07:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Um, no they aren't. Kuralyov 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • They're non-canon. .... 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    If it can be assumed that the figures on the cover of Legacy 10 are the same as the Galactic Alliance guards in Legacy 9, then its not made up. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 11:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Joke or not. They're there and they're blue. A non-canon tag can always be slapped onto the article. KEJ 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Very weak keep. --Azizlight 12:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  5. -Darthtyler

Merge

Redirect

Delete

  1. Kuralyov 02:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Enochf 12:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Per Riffsyphon. They're meant to be the security guys, not a separate entity. So they should be covered elsewhere, and a redirect wouldn't be useful. Otherwise, we might as well make Unidentified green-armored man for this cover or Tentacled astromech droid for the original depiction of Vuffi Raa. -LtNOWIS 13:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC) -LtNOWIS 13:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I like the "Unidentified green-armored man"-thing. KEJ 14:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
      • "Unidentified green-armored man" deleted as WP:POINT. Content was: "#REDIRECT Darth Vader". - Sikon 14:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Not to prove a point, but to prevent actual articles from being made from those redlinks. KEJ 14:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Pointlessness per LtNOWIS. Merge into main bodyguards article if desired.--Valin Kenobi 18:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Wipe this pathetic article from the face of the galaxy! No, seriously, for all we know, they may be identified people wearing different clothing. Sheesh! Darth Anxor(Rule the Galaxy) Revanchist Sith 02:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Delete. Compare page 14 of Trust Issues, Part 1 to the cover of Trust Issues, Part 2 for positive identification of the "blue-armored men" as Alliance guards.75.71.95.3 23:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Gar Stazi's bodyguards and expand

  1. Since these are apparently the same as the guards seen in #9. - Sikon 14:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Havac 22:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. If they exist in canon and can be given a more informative name, that's the sort of article we want. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'm not familiar with the comic(s), but I agree with Silly Dan's assessment. - Esjs 06:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Ozzel 06:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Unit 8311 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Who's the genius who went and made it into a redirect already? -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  9. Shifting vote to here. Riffsyphon1024 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  10. Atarumaster88 20:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  11. Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  12. Rename. And then use a different picture, particularly that one where Antares and Ganner are discussing them in Trust Issues #1 where you can actually see the faces of all three instead of the back of one's head and half the face of the other. The cover of Trust Issues #2 is also innaccurate with regard to the attire of Bovark, Stazi and his guards.Muuuuuurgh 19:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  13. Renaming the article is a good strategy. KEJ 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • These people don't even appear in the comic itself, and the page was only created as a joke by Sikon. Kuralyov 02:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a stub. I don't know if i should vote to delete or keep.--Windu223 13:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)