Forum:TC:Unidentified clone trooper 2 (Geonosis)

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Unidentified clone trooper 2 (Geonosis)
This page is an archive of the Trash compactor discussion about the future of Wookieepedia's coverage of the topic(s) listed below, including whether or not to delete or redirect the relevant page(s). This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the relevant talk pages or in the Senate Hall forum rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 21:20, August 19, 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified clone trooper 2 (Geonosis) (history - links - logs - delete - protect)

The clone has done very little of notable, certainly not worth an article.

Delete

  1. Winterz (talk) 14:13, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
  2. But he stood near a wall. That's totally notable. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 17:03, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
  3. *sigh* Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 17:06, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
  4. Exiled Jedi Oldrepublic crest (Greetings) 18:36, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
  5. Trip391 (talk) 23:46, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
  6. Despite seeing this vote as utterly counterproductive in nature, seeing as we just passed this article and worked on improving it, I do agree that this article is not very notable (using a bacta thing and dying doesn't make one notable), and opposing out of precedence shouldn't keep it alive. In the future, if we are all going to decide as a group that an article is deemed unworthy of existence, let it be at the beginning of the nomination process, instead of shortly after it has passed. 501st dogma(talk) 00:16, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  7. Not notable, and GA status is 100% irrelevant to this discussion. —MJ— Council Chambers 06:56, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  8. AV-6R7User talk:AV-6R7 07:08, August 8, 2014 (UTC) As much as I hate deleting articles, this guy doesn't deserve one. Not named, stood by a wall, I could go on.
  9. praguepride (Talk) 18:54, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  10. Wouldn't half-mind an amendment concerning notability to be added to the Status nom pages to keep us from having to clean stuff up on the back end like we're doing now. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 00:14, August 14, 2014 (UTC)
    • I would disagree because it is not the place of individual reviewers or the review panels to make decisions on notability. That is the job of the community as a whole. All that would happen is that someone objects and we end up here in the trash compactor, where such discussion belongs, anyway. So given that, including "...be notable" in the status article rules is IMO instruction creep, since there is nothing preventing an article from being placed in the TC while nominated for status, and it's patently obvious that a status nomination cannot pass if the article ceases to exist during the nomination process. —MJ— Jedi Council Chambers 18:01, August 19, 2014 (UTC)
  11. IFYLOFD (Enter the Floydome) 01:46, August 14, 2014 (UTC)

Keep

Opposing mainly because the article was brought to status just over 2 months ago. Notability should have been questioned then, instead of now, after all the work has gone into it. 501st dogma(talk) 23:46, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
Per Dogma. While status does not confirm notability, this should've been done during the nomination process.--Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 23:49, August 7, 2014 (UTC)
  • I just want to point out that the reviewing bodies (Inq, AC, or EC) do not have the power to object to notability. The only objections that are considered valid are those specifically covered by site policy, such as a Layout Guide or Manual of Style violation. There is no general notability policy that governs articles, so there is no legal grounds to making an objection on the nomination pages for lack of notability. The argument that you people are trying to make that this should have been handled on the nomination page is completely and utterly wrong. You're trying to say that we as reviewers should stop a nomination from going through because we subjectively think the article isn't notable even though there is no notability policy. Unless and until a notability policy is created, notability cannot be determined on the FAN, GAN, or CAN pages. This is specifically what the TC process is for. If you think the subject is inherently notable enough to deserve an article, fine; but your current argument does not work. Toprawa and Ralltiir (talk) 00:03, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
    • Aah. Makes enough sense to me. I didn't know about some of that, but in that case I think that such a policy should be implemented, as right now it seems kinda random. For example, I had that Unidentified Rodian with Jacket article written up, and it was fairly decided that it wasn't notable during the nom process, and as such the page was TC'd. But currently, I understand the reasoning. I'll strike opposition.--Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 18:18, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
  1. Voting this way in response to the fact that he was a confirmed participant of the battle. Corellian PremierJedi symbolThe Force will be with you always 00:38, August 8, 2014 (UTC)
    • And how on earth is that a requirement for notability? We've deleted dozens of TCW droids and troopers that were participants in battles. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 00:44, August 8, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion