Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fall of the Jedi Temple

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of the Jedi Temple

Delete, nn fanfic. Reeks of copyvio but Google doesn't find it, so could be from a print book I suppose. If someone recognises it, then please do copyvio it. -Splash 18:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete non encyclopedic. UkPaolo 19:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Really bad fanfiction Delete with extreme prejudice. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
• The shaak scene is not fiction-gpigr (Vote by Gpigr (talk • contribs))

Relisting. Not enough discussion. Five more days. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I've only seen RotS once, but isn't this just the scene from the movie where Anakin kills all the jedi in the temple? Surely we don't need articles on every scene in the movie...that's going way to far into cruft. --Etacar11 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No. We don't need an article for every scene, but in the Star Wars Universe, The Fall of the Temple is a significant event in the grand scheme of things. -- Zanaq 20:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with Jedi Temple - which is pretty thorough already. Remove fanfiction. Rewrite: Make clear which elements are from the movie, some novel, or isn't canonical but still notable. -- Zanaq 20:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What he have here is unencylopedic in the extreme. Even in the best case do we need an article on a movie scene which lasts acouple of minutes? DJ Clayworth 21:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • No. This page should be about an event not a movie scene. The text should be extensively edited. Zanaq 21:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge Trollderella 21:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and wikifyJournalist (talk • contribs)
• redirect to Jedi Temple. mikka (t) 21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; Unworthy of existance | Celcius 22:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Great Jedi Purge should suffice, this page adds no information of encyclopdic value. If this is the actual dialogue from the movie, this is a copyvio. Martg76 22:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• The bulk of the current content is unsalvagable. Any article about this "event" should be discussed in context, not in a breakout article. I see nothing worth merging from this article. Delete. Rossami (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete- Great Jedi Purge makes this article redundant. --Scimitar ^parley 23:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete we've got a full plot summary at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and we've got Great Jedi Purge and Jedi Temple - that is more than enough, even for this film. --Doc (?) 00:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Unequivocal delete. Cites no references and is so wholly unencyclopedic in tone that the fan-fiction cannot be distinguished from any material of encyclopedic merit. This is why Wikipedia:Cite sources is so important. Existing related articles already cover this territory well enough, as mentioned above by Doc Glasgow. Fernando Rizo T/C 02:01, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Darth Cruft. Even Trollderella couldn't say "keep" unequivocally. JDoorjam 02:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Duh. Fang Aili 03:48, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect to Great Jedi Purge. Radiant_>|< 07:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Proto t c 11:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• I don't close deletion discussions that I have extended, so seeing that this one had attracted so much discussion in its extended period I thought I'd take a look. It seems to me that this could most usefully be redirected to Great Jedi Purge, which covers the same event in a more encyclopedic manner. There may be some salvageable material and if this is so no doubt it will find its way from the history of this article into the other one. The writing has a certain youthful brio that we don't normally expect in encyclopedia articles, but there's nothing inherently wrong with that style; it can make the fictional events more interesting to read. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 12:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable - Tεxτurε 15:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.