Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rule of Two

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Please take any merge discussion to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of Two

No assertion of notability. Single cited source is to in-franchise, in-universe plot summary; no material present that offers a real-world treatment of the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FICT, no evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be any worth in a chainsaw merge and redirect to Sith? -- saberwyn 05:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not Wookieepedia. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable aspect of major franchise with importance to people in the real world. Consistent with First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia on Star Wars. And clear reader interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple deletion would be significantly less productive than a redirect to Star Wars: Darth Bane: Rule of Two. -LtNOWIS (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely non-notable outside of the fictional universe. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 20:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But considering the notability of that fictional universe, it is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Across multiple AfDs, you continue to make this specious assertion. --EEMIV (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Across multiple AfDs, I continue to see specious assertions for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we then delete Dr. Who, Zaphod Beeblebrox, and more to the point, ideas from fictional universes such as Rules of Acquisition? I think not. I hate to use other stuff exists, which I often admonish others for using, but this seems clear-cut to me. Like those others, this is notable in its own right: if you're a Star Wars fan, this is basic stuff. Keep. Frank | talk 17:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepsies - agree needs some out-of-universe material to balance, but article quality is not a prerequisite for deletion. Has sources, hence notable Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clear reader interest here, major aspect of an extremely notable franchise. GlassCobra 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you substantiate either of those claims? If so, please add citations to your reliable sources to the article. --EEMIV (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - NO assertion of notability means that none of the other criteria need to be brought up. If it has no notability, then no references, no expansion beyond OR or stub status is possible. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability. This stuff could be a section of Sith maybe indopug (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that can be a section of other articles would be merged and redirected without deletion per the GFDL. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star Wars: Darth Bane: Rule of Two as a reasonable search term (and because it preserves the history). Then Merge content to various articles as appropriate. Simply does not meet the minimum threshold of WP:FICT - no reliable sources to confirm real-world notability. Pastordavid (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
R2Delete2 Long ago, in a non-notable galaxy far, far away... Ecoleetage (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is not a reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.