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 — if you feel a compelling need to transwiki, as a late suggestion mentioned, contact me or another admin who will provide a copy of the deleted article. --Haemo 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoloNet[edit]

HoloNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Original research, no third-party sources, no assertion of real-world notability. Should have included in my earlier dragnet. --EEMeltonIV 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this article for same reasons: Sabacc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep. Informative. The Rypcord. 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no double voting--Nick Y. 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both. The Rypcord. 16:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Being informative is not sufficient grounds to retain an article. There are lots of "informative" things out there that don't meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. Additionally, an article's "informative" nature is dubious in absence of reliable sources. --EEMeltonIV 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Then we find sources, insert sources to show verifiable evidence. No need to delete an article just for that sole reasoning. As there is obviously a ton of online as well as in print sources for all things Star Wars. The Rypcord. 17:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Still doesn't address issue of lacking real-world notability. See WP:FICT. --EEMeltonIV 17:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - In that case, no fictional character should have an article. The Rypcord. 17:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - That's ridiculous. Look at, for example, Padme Amidala, which includes much real-world information about the character's development, costuming, etc. -- real-world aspects to the character. Or TIE fighter, which includes information on its design and real-world merchandising. However, there are no significant real-world aspects to either of these two articles. Notice, too, that Padme Amidala's and TIE fighter's assertions and information are supported by reliable sources. Again, please read WP:FICT for more on notability for elements of fiction. --EEMeltonIV 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both As notable as star wars is and many of the characters and places therein these two are a real stretch. Most people other than the die hard fans have no idea what these are. Everyone knows who Darth Vader is though ;)--Nick Y. 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Many fictional things have notability, this does not demonstrate any. Judgesurreal777 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SliceDelete per EEMeltonIV. shoy 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EEMeltonIV. Epbr123 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you just go to every Af'd to vote, or did you follow me here? Because you have yet to edit a single Star Wars article or seem to know anything about Star Wars in general. The Rypcord. 19:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• TransWiki or Keep Both are notable in the Star Wars community, so I vote either transwiki to Wookiepedia or keep. Viperix 16:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think TransWiki would be best. Epbr123 16:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.