Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Light Sith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. --Coredesat 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Light Sith

Light Sith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod, notice removed by article creator. Original prod reason: Original fan fiction. Second editor endorsement reason: Wikipedia is not for self-publishing. Following prod removal, article creator has added "(I'm currently waiting for George Lucas' approval, so that I can go ahead and publish it)". Not much more for me to say here really, other than to recommend Delete. Michael Devore 09:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Obviously delete: WP is not for stuff thought up one day at school, nor even deeply thought up about for several days (and never published elsewhere), and all that. Goochelaar 09:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. Seth Bresnett • (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all reasons expressed above. --Evb-wiki 14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete The reasons for deletion expressed in the previous postings are all valid. 70.21.254.188 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:MADEUP and fancruft. Dbromage [Talk] 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No discussion is necessary. Though I wish the author well with his efforts, this not what Wikipedia is for and it should have been speedy deleted. Atropos 07:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's no good criteria to flag this type of article as speedy as a user; only admins can decide and assert WP:SNOW to make a quick deletion. So, this article with no speedy route and a contested prod forces an AfD, resulting in sighs from readers (presumably, I plead guilty to a couple of sighs on posting). There are admins who may push the boundaries of CSD G1, G3, G11, or A7 to SD really silly articles, but that's a raffle at best, with a rebuke for users who get too creative using the tag. Plus, successful shoehorned-to-fit SD's are controversial and generate other admin and user complaints. Seems a flaw in the process. Michael Devore 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The rules should have been ignored. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original thought, and though the author means well, he is mistaken. Atropos 05:29, 24 August 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.