Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclipse II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Marudubshinki (talk | contribs) at 18:29, 11 June 2006 (Robot: Automated text replacement (-starwars.wikicities +starwars.wikia)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 18:29, 11 June 2006 by Marudubshinki (talk | contribs) (Robot: Automated text replacement (-starwars.wikicities +starwars.wikia))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 merge and redirect. ugen64 03:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am nominating this as a test case. I would ordinarily call this an article that should be deleted outright. This ship plays a minor role in a single Star Wars story and is never heard from again. This is fancruft of the tiniest signifigance. However, I am not voting delete because of a new project, the Star Wars wiki that has been recently created. I think this should be transwikied to that location. Indrian 07:07, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge or keep
test cases ofall canon fancruft. Kappa 07:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)- I believe Indrian is putting this here to test if it merits deletion by consensus, therefore it is a test case. Your statement that test cases should be kept is therefore illogical unless i am misunderstanding it. If all test cases were kept, nothing would ever be deleted from wikipedia. Halidecyphon 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Don't put on VFD things you don't want deleted. Merge and redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 09:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiking involves deleting the page from wikipedia and moving to another wiki, and therefore is handled by the VfD page, as far as I know. Please correct me if I am misinformed about this policy.Halidecyphon 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You seem to have failed to grasp my point entirely. This page most certainly should be deleted, and I would vote for that over a keep or merge. However, since an alternative forum exists where this information could be moved, I have put that forward as an alternate solution to losing the knowledge. Indrian 15:20, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Transwiki. This is non-notable for an encyclopedia but perfectly relavent to the Star Wars Wiki, per Indrian above.Halidecyphon 12:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:FICT. Radiant_* 13:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- This is a semi-policy as opoosed to an official policy, and the major thrust is on dealing with characters, though other fictional concepts are also covered. While this approach works for most fiction, the Star Wars universe is so large that creating lists on every minor point would not be feasible: they would simply grow to large and be split back into individual articles. That is the very reason that a Star Wars wiki was created and the very reason why minutae like the Eclipse II belongs there. Indrian 15:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I never said it was policy, I'm simply using it as reasoning for my vote. Anyway, I think transwikiing to the Star Wars wiki would be appropriate, but since it doesn't list a legal disclaimer anywhere I could find, I'm not sure that that's legally allowed. Radiant_* 17:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Fair enough. As I stated, this is a test case. Indrian 19:55, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- I never said it was policy, I'm simply using it as reasoning for my vote. Anyway, I think transwikiing to the Star Wars wiki would be appropriate, but since it doesn't list a legal disclaimer anywhere I could find, I'm not sure that that's legally allowed. Radiant_* 17:34, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- This is a semi-policy as opoosed to an official policy, and the major thrust is on dealing with characters, though other fictional concepts are also covered. While this approach works for most fiction, the Star Wars universe is so large that creating lists on every minor point would not be feasible: they would simply grow to large and be split back into individual articles. That is the very reason that a Star Wars wiki was created and the very reason why minutae like the Eclipse II belongs there. Indrian 15:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dark Empire to encourage organic growth of that page and discourage re-creation. IMO, the existence or lack thereof of the Star Wars wiki is irrelevant to what good management of the Wikipedia should be. Everything in an encyclopedia is inherently a presentation of information available elsewhere. Shimmin 17:42, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Fancruft. Merge to Dark Empire until the latter is long enough to warrant breakout articles. —Korath (Talk) 23:48, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki → Star Wars wiki. This is only of pratical use to hard-core fans, and we now have a place to send it. --Allen3 talk 00:23, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with Star Destroyer, specifically the Eclipse-class part. I think all of the relevant information is there anyhow, so deletion won't matter much. Edit: Crud, I forgot to sign my name.-LtNOWIS 04:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with Star Destroyer as per WP:FICT. I don't really see why there has been another test case, plently of SW and Middle Earth articles have been nominated over the past while and there have been two looks at policy consensus on these types of issues Wikipedia:Deletion_policy/Minor_characters and Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Middle-earth items both of which have been coming to the same conclusions. The WP:FICT semi-policy was born out of these and applies AFAIK to all fiction items be they characters, places, concepts, weapons, ships... whatever... -- Lochaber 15:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- + Comment Doesn't transwiki refer to moving articles between Wikimedia projects (m:Transwiki)? Wikicities an external website and why should content on an external website have any bearing on what is here on Wikipedia? since there's not supposed to be any original research on Wikipedia then the chances are that almost everything on Wikipedia is available somewhere else including other websites. Now I know that Wikicities is owned by Wikia and all but it's still seperate. -- Lochaber 15:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The great thing about the Wikipedia is the ability to find entries on any topic, regardless of how trivial it may be. Linking or transwikiing defeats the purpose of having a compendium of all knowledge.--Thresher 17:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't believe that we can just transwiki to a wikicities project (though it would certainly have been more appropriate for the fan to have created it there in the first place). In Wikipedia, I would argue to merge if you can find a good target and delete if not. I do not believe that this should be kept as a stand-alone article. Rossami (talk) 04:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. The "Star Wars wiki" is not a Wikimedia project, does not state its copyright license (unless I'm not noticing something), and has ads. Wikicities has no relationship whatsoever with Wikimedia, so this information should stay on Wikimedia, whether it is kept on this page or merged.
- Andrew pmk forgot to sign. —Korath (Talk) 09:20, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Transwiki. We'll take it. I usually copy these articles under Vfd first, and then it can be decided how to direct people to it from Wikipedia. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:32, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.