Talk:AT-RT

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 to keep the page. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AT-RT

Star Wars sub-trivia. --BM 14:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Star Wars vehicles or something like that. It'll only reappear otherwise. Rje 14:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is this being considered for deletion? Have I placed it in the wrong category? 84.202.32.248 15:11, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Because the article seems to fail the test of being "encyclopedic", the subject is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. In this case, it is basically trivia related to a fictional universe. Also, it is basically not expandable. The article can't ever really be more than one sentence. --BM 15:44, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge or keep if the merge queue is too long. Merging makes some sense because it's not interesting outside of the star wars universe. There is no reason to delete detail like this because Wikipedia is not paper. Kappa 15:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I´m pretty sure I marked it as a SW item and put it in the proper category... VT-16 15:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Would be better in the machines or guns or critters of SW article. As a separate article, it is essentially lost information and/or a claiming of a letter combination that might be in use by a real world item that needs an entry. Geogre 16:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The information can be found easily from the category or well-sectioned List of vehicles in Star Wars under imperial -> ground vehicles. The page could be moved to AT-RT (Star Wars) to prevent any real-world clashes but somehow I don't think that would change Geogre's mind. Kappa 16:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Finding it via categories is a bit precious. Insiders know to use them. Researchers, though, use the handy search box. You could also say that the information would be found by clicking on its linked article, which would be true. However, in that case you already know what it is. As for the people who go to an encyclopedia to cruise the category list of a fictional universe, I don't think that's truly general knowledge encyclopedia reading. That seems to me to be fan site work. Geogre 17:41, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If there's no article for AT-ST the search box would presumably show AT-ST (Star Wars) as a result for "AT-ST" so the info could be found. If there was a real AT-ST article, yes it would be hidden unless there was a disambig on that page, (which it probably wouldn't deserve) but that's not the case yet. Kappa 19:43, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. —tregoweth 16:28, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We have articles for the AT-ST and AT-AT. I think this is a good stub that can grow into something similar. Andrewa 16:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Inaccurate comparison. The AT-AT and AT-ST are probably the two best-known vehicles in the entire Star Wars universe. I've never heard of the AT-RT, and it claims to appear in Episode III, which won't release until May. Isomorphic 10:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I still fail to see any valid reason why this particular entry should be deleted, since there is an entire sub-section dealing exclusively with SW-related material. When the movie comes out, there will be more info on the entry, and if i don´t write it here, someone else will (as they have already done with vehicles in the other films). VT-16 18:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. --JuntungWu 08:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Intrigue 00:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, personal POV over whether one would like this information to be in a small encyclopædia is irrelevant; this listing does not seem to have been made on grounds in line with policy. James F. (talk) 02:16, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Trivia, and appears to refer to something that won't be seen until Episode III releases. Isomorphic 10:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. Hoary 05:01, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverifiable artifact in a yet-to-be-released film. Such speculation is inappropriate to an encyclopedia. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it has been verified on the official SW site and in previews for a tie-in toyline. VT-16 12:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth for the multitude of reasons provided above. GRider\^talk 18:45, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it will grow, once the movie is out. "me"

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 on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.