Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/22 BBY
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
Co-list: 32 BBY, 4 ABY and Category:Fictional years (The last one is also currently listed on CfD.)
Ok, this is starting to get a little out of hand. Now, I'm as big a fan of Star Wars as anyone else. I can see the suitability of many articles about Star Wars, considering its impact on many cultures. Articles on major characters, sure. Compilation articles on minor characters or races, OK. (I created Minor characters in Star Wars and Minor races in Star Wars in order to save a lot of stubs from deletion) I can even let the esoteric Dates in Star Wars article slide. But individual articles for significant years in the Star Wars universe?!? I think that's pushing the definition of encyclopedic just a little far.
I think it's time the Star Wars fans start a wiki-portal for all the Star Wars esoterica we're accumulating here. Kevyn 00:19, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: This is a death star too far. Geogre 00:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I listed my justication for 32 BBY on the Talk:Dates in Star Wars page when I created it months ago and no one complained. The idea was that if someone complained, then I would stop, but no one expressed any coment, so I assumed no one had a problem with it. Delete them if you must, but I wish you had something about this a long time ago. I'd certainly love to see you try to plug the information back into the Dates in Star Wars page, because I'm not going to help you with that.
- It wasn't "months ago", it was in August that you did it. And it wasn't particularly difficult of me to merge the info back in, a simple copy-paste and a couple stylistic touches was all it took to do. And as a sidenote for the future -- it's better if you describe your edits in the "Edit Summary box", atleast when they are major ones. Cheers. And Delete (or Redirect). Aris Katsaris 01:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It wasn't "months ago", it was in August that you did it. Sorry, it seemed like a long time ago. I'm just saying that someone should have complained a long time ago, rather than now.
- It wasn't "months ago", it was in August that you did it. And it wasn't particularly difficult of me to merge the info back in, a simple copy-paste and a couple stylistic touches was all it took to do. And as a sidenote for the future -- it's better if you describe your edits in the "Edit Summary box", atleast when they are major ones. Cheers. And Delete (or Redirect). Aris Katsaris 01:39, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect all three articles. -Sean Curtin 01:36, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I merged and redirected all three of them. If anyone minds that I rushed the process, feel free to revert, but I don't think there's any reason. Aris Katsaris 01:45, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete all: subtrivial pseudoinformation. Another one for the fan sites, and if the fans can't be bothered to host it, then we can't either. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:05, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and Delete. I'm starting to think there should be a Wikifan site for all this stuff. Average Earthman 08:56, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed. A dedicated Wikifan site makes a lot of sense. Wile E. Heresiarch 17:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No vote. Comment: Please clarify your vote. Merge and Delete are incompatible reccomendations. Merge means keeping the article history; Delete means deleting the article history. Davodd 16:37, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I meant merge the data with a main article, deleting this one. Average Earthman 18:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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.
