Forum:TC:Unnamed Mos Eisley woman

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Unnamed Mos Eisley woman

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 keep.—Silly Dan (talk) 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed Mos Eisley woman (talk - history - links - logs)

This article is pretty much the pinnacle of unnoteability. Yinyang 02:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Yinyang 02:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 02:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Imperialles 12:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Keep – It's still canon. Greyman(Talk) 05:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Graestan(Talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. If we can keep unnamed stormtroopers, we can keep everyone. jSarek 11:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. -- Keep - by current rules, every article is notable. QuentinGeorge 11:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Canon! Havac 01:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. She's there, she's canonical, she stays - death to purgism! KEJ 18:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Of course keep. Per QG. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Are we not going with "Unidentified" now, though? Gonk (Gonk!) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Canon is canon. Unit 8311 15:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  11. Like it or not, she's canon. Welcome to Wookieepedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  12. Yet again I see the "n" word thrown around with absolutely no policy to back it up. -- Ozzel 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  13. Will need to be renamed when the policy becomes official, but doesn't need to be deleted. Canon. Wildyoda 03:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments