Wookieepedia:Votes for deletion/Willow

< 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 keep..—Silly Dan (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Willow (talk - history - links - logs)

It is completely unrelated to Star Wars. It is a completely different film. So therefore I think we should get rid of it. -Oscar22 16:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep

  1. Kuralyov 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. See Kuralyov's comment below. However, I'm not too happy about all Willow-related pages. —Xwing328(Talk) 00:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Does no harm: all Willow-related articles are in articles which don't mix with Star Wars articles, thus far. There might be a bit more of an arguement for allowing only Willow to have an article, and getting rid of Daikini or Andowyne, but let's not get into that just yet. —Silly Dan (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 00:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Valin Kenobi 04:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Green Tentacle (Talk) 14:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Commander Jorrel Fraajic Wiki-shrinkable Communications Relay 04:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Any film that can generate six Star Wars databank entries, Star Wars or not, deserves an article. jSarek 05:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. The community has tolerated it long enough, there is no reason to change our minds now. MoffRebus 12:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. KEJ 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. The fact that this film has generated a databank update of six entries, April Fool's or not, makes it notable for this encyclopedia. I also support keeping the articles for the various Willow databank entries just as we would an article for any other databank entry. Adamwankenobi 01:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keep. It's an amusing sidenote. Though I think we can sack the rest of them, and just have this one redirect elsewhere.PMMJ 26 January 2007

Merge

  1. Into a list of Lucas' works. This is a Star Wars Wiki, not a Lucas wiki. .... 05:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Non-SW Lucas works get one page. Havac 04:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. NighthawkLeader 04:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Delete

  1. Delete it because it is unrelated to Star Wars. - Oscar22 17:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Delete. This is Star Wars. Not Star Wars meets Willow, not Star Wars meets Star Trek, and most certainly not Lucas' April Fools Joke Storehouse. If Willow nuts want a wiki, they should make it themselves.--Goodwood 00:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Delete. This is Wookieepedia, not willopedia. --ArznK9 15:25, 22 January 2007
  4. Darth Nospher 10:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Per above. Joker1138(Mandalore) Neo-Crusader emblem 18:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Did you even bother reading the article to see why it's here? Kuralyov 00:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there enough of a fanbase behind the film and the sequel novels to warrant another wikia-hosted wiki? Or maybe there should be a wiki for all Lucasfilm-related stuff which isn't Star Wars or Indiana Jones? —Silly Dan (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd go for keeping the article on the movie but not including articles on the various characters. That's not yet an option on the vote though. --Eyrezer 00:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • On that, either delete the articles such as 'XXX was an individal from Andowyne' or expand them a bit MoffRebus 12:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)