Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Rise of the dark falls

< Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Delete. SparqMan 03:10, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Rise of the dark falls/Rise of the Dark Falls

Comments from talk page

This book may not be officially canon but it was at some time and is sought after by many collectors including myself. Please do not delete this piece of Star Wars history. (Unsigned comment from 137.140.133.28)

  • Post proof, please. Google got me exactly one hit. — Silly Dan 21:50, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

give me 2 days and ill get you proof

i have spent considerable research on this text, and am confused as to why it's being deleted so fast (Unsigned comment from 137.140.133.28)

  • Because there is no proof. I'll put this on VFD, and if you can't convince us within the voting period, the article will be gone. — Silly Dan 00:43, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Comments from nominator

  • Rise of the dark falls, if it is legitimate, should be at Rise of the Dark Falls. If not, both should be deleted.
  • This is the only google result for "Rise of the dark falls", where it is mentioned by a Jedi Council Forums poster with the username "Bid4Tuna".
  • The anonymous poster who started this article claims to have researched this text extensively, and requests two days to get proof. If this novel existed, and was not merely another minor fanfic, it might be worth an article. We have a precedent for articles on non-canon works (TROOPS, Alien Exodus, "Book of Imperial Shuttle Plans: Cygnus Spaceworks"), so notable enough works might be allowed. — Silly Dan 00:57, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Votes

Delete

  1. Delete — Silly Dan 00:57, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  2. Delete, barring any amazing evidence. At best, this was a piece of fan fiction whose author went so far as to actually publish it, requiring a legal smackdown from LFL—but I'm betting it is just regular old fan fiction. --SparqMan 01:59, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  3. Delete, unless some actual concrete evidence is ponied up. QuentinGeorge 05:08, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  4. Fine. Two days to provide some pretty impressive evidence. Otherwise delete with extreme prejudice. If this is so notable, why hasn't anyone ever heard of it? Does Lucasfilm have those flashy memory-eraser things from Men in Black? If so, why do we all still remember The Glove of Darth Vader but not this? —Darth Culator (talk) 05:13, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  5. Glove of what now? =p Let's be realistic, guys. There is no chance that this thing could have existed, however briefly, and no one would know about it. It's Star Wars, for crying out loud. CooperTFN 05:32, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  6. Delete unless the book realy existed. It would be cool if it did, but I doubt it. KEJ 16:32, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  7. Delete as there is no physical proof or statement from a respected member of the SW community confirming its existence. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:57, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  8. Delete. 2 days passed, what a pathetic attempt to gain time. --Thinortolan 22:52, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  1. "Rise of the Dark Falls" would be cool? =p CooperTFN 20:21, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  2. Well, I didn't say that "Rise of the Dark Falls" would be cool, but that it would be cool if such a book existed - there's a difference, you know? :-P KEJ 15:04, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  3. I'd like to know what was so wrong with it that would force LFL to terminate its very existence, assuming it existed at all. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:57, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  4. Come to think of it, the title doesn't make grammatical sense to me. Is the anonymous writer of the original article sure that the title is correct? — Silly Dan 21:20, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
  5. Well, it is grammatically possible (Rise) (of) (the Dark Falls)). I guess even (Rise of the Dark) (Falls) is possible, even though it makes no sense semantically KEJ 10:55, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  6. "give me 2 days and ill get you proof" posted at 18:49, 28 Nov 2005. Current time: 00:16, 20 December 2025. This needs to go away now. —Darth Culator (talk) 02:46, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Not that I expect anything, but I think we should follow the regular forms for this one. If there's nothing new next week, then we'll delete. — Silly Dan 03:22, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • I can't believe we're still waiting for this guy. C'mon..."The Search for Chewbacca's Gold"? CooperTFN 01:29, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • For those who don't like situations like this, I encourage to read and give opinion about:Wookieepedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Simplified deletion for fanon? --Thinortolan 01:37, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, to be honest, it's mostly curiosity that makes me want to prolong this vote for a few days more. I suspect that the title is wrong, and that SparqMan was right about it being self-published fanfic that Lucasfilm smacked down. But I'd love to see the "proof" anyway. — Silly Dan 02:20, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)