Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scarab Starfighter

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 no consensus, but most votes to keep were to merge, so merging and redirecting to Minor vehicles in Star Wars. — Gwalla | Talk 01:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scarab Starfighter

nn, about a particular ship in a particular, apparently nn, game. Much of the article is mere speculation. Friday 7 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable. unlikely to ever be more than what it is now, which is speculative trivia.Tobycat 7 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)
• Delete: Use only union starfighters, not scabs! (Kidding.) Speculation on what "maybe" a ship that was "maybe" made by a faction in a game. Subtrivial subcruft. Geogre 7 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre -Harmil 7 July 2005 03:42 (UTC)
• Well, a decent article could be written about this, as this site proves. Nevertheless, I think this is below the bar for Star Wars notability, so delete.-LtNOWIS 7 July 2005 06:17 (UTC)

• I change my vote to merge to Minor vehicles in Star Wars. Other video-game only vehicles are there.-LtNOWIS 9 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be canon, and the article is valid, if in need of some cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 7 July 2005 11:30 (UTC)
• Abstain. The vehicle is indeed canon, and the Lucasarts website indicates that the Scarab fighter will have more information on it in some upcoming books, along with other vehicles featured in the game. We can either keep the article until then, or someone will come along and write it when more information is available. I don't think it matters really; whoever writes the new one will most likely remove the information in this one anyway. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 13:35 (UTC)
• Comment Looks like it only exists in a game. This makes is non-canon by definition, does it not? I thought Lucas always claimed only the films were canon. Anyway, there's no article about the game, so why is one particular type of ship used in the game more notable than the game itself? Friday 7 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)
  • Lucas divides SW into canon levels. Movies are the top level, followed by EU books. Games are in the lowest level, but vehicles mentioned in games are almost always considered canon. --Scimitar 7 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the various games are considered to be as canonical as fanfiction. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 19:46 (UTC)
    • Not quite. For instance Kyle Katarn played a major role in SW despite being a video game character; his story has been moved to books and is considered quite canonical. Certainly more so than, say, Ken, who only appears in some books. --Scimitar 8 July 2005 14:11 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dcarrano July 7, 2005 16:39 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. -R. fiend 7 July 2005 20:42 (UTC)
• Delete, not verifiable. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 12:40 (UTC)

• How exactly is this not verifiable? A quick "Scarab star wars" search comes up with lot's of official hits. It's in Star Wars Wiki and TheForce.Net's encyclopedia.-LtNOWIS 9 July 2005 05:32 (UTC)

• Merge Into Minor vehicles in Star Wars: Though clearly undeserving of its own article, it can be merged into the Minor Vehicles article and expanded a bit. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 9 July 2005 16:29 (UTC)
• Merge per LtNOWIS. KissL 07:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Every single one of the 393 annoying Pokemons get their individual pages, I don't see why this is any less notable than any of them. Delete all or keep all. -Hmib 06:41, 14 July 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.