Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicket W. Warrick

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Xezbeth 18:51, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wicket W. Warrick

Fancruft. Now that there's a Star Wars Wiki, pages like this don't belong on a real life encyclopedia. Delete.--67.123.232.156 05:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, well written article, there are tons of these, let's not go on a witchhunt. RickK 05:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There are lots of other wikis, and no reason that Wikipedia can't have overlapping content when the content fits Wikipedia's notability criteria. A Man In Black 06:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. FYI: Nominator had also been trying to unilaterally amend Template:Swwiki to read, "This article should be considered as a candidate to be copied to the Star Wars Wiki and then deleted." [1]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not so good as the wookie article, but still no reason I can see that Wikipedia shouldn't include articles on popular culture. Vashti 06:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Mass-nominating on VfD is probably not a good idea. Also, it seems irrelevant whether the article exists at the SWW. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and expand. Well written article. Megan1967 07:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, significant character. Gazpacho 07:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The main ewok, both in Return of the Jedi and the later Ewoks TV series, comics, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme Keep This user should be banned completely. He put Wookiee on Vfd. Just because there's some "star wars wiki" doesn't mean all star wars articles should be deleted, you crazy idiot! What's next, Princess Leia? Darth Vader? are those "fancruft" too? Stancel 17:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good luck trying to remove all the fictional subjects from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not paper. 23skidoo 19:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I was ready to vote "merge" until I RTFA'ed and learned that this was the most significant Ewok in the series. Some editors, especially Stancel, need a reminder to maintain courtesy and assume good faith, rather than screaming ban threats and insults. Especially over something that doesn't even exist in anything but commercial fiction and related marketing tie-ins. Presence of an article on Star Wars Wiki need not determine WP's handling, but it's reasonable to assume that minor plot elements, minor characters, etc. are more acceptable to merge (per WP:FICT) or delete from WP (if trivial) when sw-wiki already include them. Fans are incorrect to assume WP needs megabytes of trivial detail just because the milieu is high-selling and widely-known. Wikipedia is not Lucasfilm celluloid nor other toilet paper. But this character isn't trivial, once the name is associated with the character. 205.247.102.130 19:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this; delete the [self-censored] nominator. —Seselwa 00:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I don't understand why there are so many attacking me, the contributor, rather than my contribution. I made these THREE nominations in earnest, because I sincerly believe the articles do not belong here. Attack that, not my motives. Okay? I would delete your comment (as per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks), but as I am the victim in this case I don't think it's appropriate.--67.123.232.156 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. --Carnildo 20:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.