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

In cases like this where an article lies around for a long time before being deleted, it may be valuable to archive its talk page. So here it is. —Silly Dan _(talk) 13:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good thinking.--Valin Kenobi 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Did they actually say WATTO is a Near-Hutt? Because he looks nothing like one. And is Nampi a species or a specific being? JimRaynor55 19:47, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)

• I believe that Nampi is a specific being. Also, these are not necessarily Near-Hutts, but races that also evolved on Varl and have genetic similarities to the Hutt race. For example, the Toydarians have a similar brain tissue to the Hutts that prevents the Mind trick from working properly. -- SFH 19:51, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Is the term Near-Hutt actually used in the sources listed, or is that part conjectural? — Silly Dan 12:52, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure the term is conjectural. This article seems to actually be two separate articles - mind-trick resistant races, and Hutt shaped species. Seems completely fanon to me. Eyrezer 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Tybarians are known to be realated to Hutts. That is canon.

Red Head Rider 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• As best I can tell, this whole article is fanon. I have never seen the term "Near-Hutt" used IU, nor even anywhere else OOU for that matter. The only one I know for sure is related to Hutts is the t'landa Til--the rest appears pure conjecture. Am I wrong?--Valin Kenobi 23:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

VFD result

A no-consensus vote defaults to keep, but there are still some problems with this article (hence the {{more sources}} and {{disputed}} tag). Mainly, though the t'landa Til are explicitly described in a couple of sources as relatives of the Hutts, the Orooturooans and Yahk-Tosh may be just big slug-like people, and the Toydarians might have independently evolved telepathic resistance. Maybe this should go back on VFD, maybe it needs rewriting, maybe it's fine as it is. Comments? —Silly Dan _(talk) 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• I stand by my earlier assertion that it should be deleted. I mean, the article even contradicts itself in the first paragraph: "were biologically related to Hutts. Some species only had general external similarities to Hutts, and had no biological connection." AFAIK the only ones actually related to Hutts are the t'landa Til; and considering their considerable physical differences (quadraped vs. slug, etc.), I'm not sure that qualifies even them as "near-Hutts", much less any of the others.--Valin Kenobi 03:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it should go. Unless someone can come up with a valid canon source for the term, it's fanon. Also, Dan is right about the t'landa Til being the only explicitly Hutt related species. Lonnyd 08:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Here lies the roots of this whole dispute:

Its from the Princess Lourdes chapter in that magazine. Throughout the chapter, Gar-oth is described as being Hutt-like, a giant slug and that he "died in a pool of slug slime". It also states that he "proved immune to Jedi mind tricks", had telepathical abilities and that he "showed remarkable speed for his size" (presumably being quite large). The article does not mention the term Near-Hutt and I have also never the actual comic book the article is written about. I now think that Gar-oth's species was not related to the Hutts but rather resembled it so I say scrap the article. MyNz 4:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's been a while since I read the comic, but that's a good rundown of the situation. Frankly he seems too buglike (arms/legs, teeth, antennae/stalks) to be closely related to Hutts anyway.--Valin Kenobi 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)