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) 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Contents
Ancient Warrior
Keep
- Adamwankenobi 11:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Charlii 13:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Kuralyov 22:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- .... 22:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Havac 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ozzel 23:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. KEJ 11:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. jSarek 11:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- QuentinGeorge 11:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) - Conjectural Space Cloggers FTW!
- Yoshi626 01:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete
- Come on now.--Valin Kenobi 07:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Imp 13:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Seriously, what the hell? --Imp 13:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cutch 18:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cull Tremayne 03:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- --Eyrezer 04:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Just for the record. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Comments
- Why is this up for deletion? Yoda says that he is quoting an ancient Pre-Republic swordsman. This is canon. Kuralyov 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I never said he wasn't canon. That was never the point. What I'm saying is that he doesn't deserve a whole article when we don't know one damn thing about him besides the quote. The article is basically just "This dude, who doesn't have a name, lived before the Republic, he was super-badass, and he said this quote that Yoda mentioned once thousands of years later". It's so generic and it just looks asinine to me. I really don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that this merits an article unto itself.--Valin Kenobi 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Valin, I think you need the "This user is a deletionist" userbox on your user page. .... 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Valin, is this mission to purge any information you don't personally deem vital really necessary? Who is this hurting? Havac 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, so far I have nominated a grand total of 7 articles for deletion. 2 of them are (still) unsourced and are probably fanon. On 2 others, I agreed to support a merge into another article or gallery. 1 other, I felt was redundant, since all the information was present in another article. And, yeah 2 of them I just thought were stupid and useless. I'd hardly say that constitutes an unholy bookburning crusade or anything. From my point of view, I'm just trying to streamline things to keep the Wooki a lean, mean, machine.--Valin Kenobi 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Still, your actions make you a deletionist. Not that there's anything wrong with that. .... 23:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- It may not be a large overall number of articles, but you're currently dominating VFD, and haven't shown much sign of slowing down. While there are plenty of content-low articles out there, I don't see that deleting them significantly streamlines the Wookiee. Havac 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Still, your actions make you a deletionist. Not that there's anything wrong with that. .... 23:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, so far I have nominated a grand total of 7 articles for deletion. 2 of them are (still) unsourced and are probably fanon. On 2 others, I agreed to support a merge into another article or gallery. 1 other, I felt was redundant, since all the information was present in another article. And, yeah 2 of them I just thought were stupid and useless. I'd hardly say that constitutes an unholy bookburning crusade or anything. From my point of view, I'm just trying to streamline things to keep the Wooki a lean, mean, machine.--Valin Kenobi 23:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Valin, is this mission to purge any information you don't personally deem vital really necessary? Who is this hurting? Havac 23:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Valin, I think you need the "This user is a deletionist" userbox on your user page. .... 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I never said he wasn't canon. That was never the point. What I'm saying is that he doesn't deserve a whole article when we don't know one damn thing about him besides the quote. The article is basically just "This dude, who doesn't have a name, lived before the Republic, he was super-badass, and he said this quote that Yoda mentioned once thousands of years later". It's so generic and it just looks asinine to me. I really don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that this merits an article unto itself.--Valin Kenobi 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, can somebody who supports this article actually supply a reason to keep it? (Other than "Because it's canon".) This is a placeholder where an article would be, if we knew anything about the character--but it doesn't even qualify as a stub, since there's nothing more to say and it's extremely unlikely this guy will turn up in any other source. It's a hollow shell of an article. It. Contains. No. Information. Valin Kenobi 21:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why delete it? We're not pressed for space. QuentinGeorge 21:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I don't see why something should have to have a name just to have an article. This character exists in the Star Wars universe. Is that not reason enough to keep it? -- Ozzel 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's just it, we DO know several things about this guy. He lived in Pre-Republic times. He was an expert swordfighter and warrior. He was the source of a well-known adage that lasted for 25,000 years or more after his death. The information is certainly sparse, but it's more than "this guy existed." jSarek 22:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Why delete it? We're not pressed for space. QuentinGeorge 21:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)