Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Technical Commentaries (2nd nomination)

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 a tie between "merge" and "delete", so technically no consensus to delete. As there's consensus that this should not currently be a separate article, I'm merging the first section only to TheForce.Net, but not the second, which sounds spurious and trivial ("Some members of Theforce.net's message board disagree..."). Per WP:V, anyone may then delete the merged content from TheForce.Net if no sources are provided. Sandstein (talk) 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Technical Commentaries

No discernible progress to substantiate claims or establish notability since last AfD. One suggested merge destination -- Curtis Saxton -- still does not exist. Article still does not meet WP:WEB. --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB, though I guess I can't see much harm in a redirect to TheForce.Net either, since that's the site that hosts it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with theforce.net. I think it's worth covering, just not by itself. Noble Story (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!! What happened to WP:WEB and how did this get passed a first nomination???? Udonknome (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was kept because nobody could agree on what should be done with it, leading to a no consensus closure (default keep). --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with TheForce.Net, of which this is a running feature without independent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB; does not establish notability Gary King (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with TheForce.Net as it seems to have more relevance there then as a stand-alone PRasmussen (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above.--Berig (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those suggesting merge - How do you address the fact that this article contains no reliable sources? TheForce.Net is well-sourced material; the suggested merge material is not. Perhaps it would be sufficient -- or, at least, most appropriate given the lack of sources -- not to merge but instead ensure the the TFN article mentions hosting the SWTC and adding (if it's printed in a cross-sections book) mention of the cross-sections book referring to/acknowledging SWTC influence. --EEMIV (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's plenty of good information on WP that is not referenced. If there's indeed nothing useful to merge, why not make it into a redirect?--Berig (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within an article on a notable topic, it is possible to use self-published material. It should not be done for superlative or comparative claims, but there's no reason this can't be mentioned in that article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge, delete - No references mean no establishment of notability, there is no point shuffling it off to another article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with TheForce.Net Ijanderson977 (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, I feel this fails WP:WEB as notability is not reasonably established. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:22, 30 April 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.