Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Near-Hutt (renomination)

< Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion

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 delete.—Silly Dan (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Near-Hutt (talk - history - links - logs)

See debates at Wookieepedia:Votes_for_deletion/Near-Hutt and Talk:Near-Hutt.

Keep

Merge

Redirect

Delete

  1. Remains unattested.--Valin Kenobi 08:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Cull Tremayne 09:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC) -- "I read about it somewhere, I think" is not a good enough reason. Find the proof or it needs to go. Cull Tremayne 09:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. Lonnyd 09:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC) per Mr. Tremayne.
  4. Needs specific proof. —Silly Dan (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  5. It can always be rewritten if a source is found. Charlii 10:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Delete. No change from my perspective. jSarek 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. If it's not found in a reference source or has an IU mention, then its not a valid term. -- Riffsyphon1024 22:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. No proof=doesn't qualify for hyperinclusionism. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 22:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  9. --Eyrezer 06:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  10. The term "Near-Hutt" isn't used anywhere in canon that I know of, and we don't know that the species in question are actually closely related enough to Hutts to be accurately described as "Near-Hutt". Just because they're products of the same evolutionary track doesn't prove they're as closely related as Humans and the Near-Human races. Red XIV 06:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  11. Scrap the article please. MyNz 06:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments