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 Speedy delete, g6 duplicate page, r3 unlikely redirect, WP:SNOW -- obviously, we can't have competing articles just because someone doesn't like the existing article. NawlinWiki 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete IG-88 Page

[edit]

Not sure whether this qualifies for CSD under A7 -- does it? Anyhow, trivial material with no real-world notability. User previously added some of this trivia to IG-88 base article, which was removed as non-notability trivia. Branch article containing even more trivia is superfluous; link to Wookieepedia sister project at IG-88 is sufficient. EEMeltonIV 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, none of the CSD really apply. Deletion would seem so uncontroversial as to warrant a quick closure though. Thomjakobsen 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I CSD'd it once for lacking context, but am fine having everything out in an AfD discussion. This page seems unecessary and boldly claims it's intent to not follow content guidelines: "It is intended to be complete and detailed rather than a summary". This is an encyclopedia - summary is what we do. Natalie 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This kind of material seems to be better covered at a fan-based wiki. Yngvarr (t) (c) 00:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one page per Star Wars droid is enough. Into The Fray ^T/C 01:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gaaack, why do people not understand what Wikia is for? I dearly hope the editor is question is younger than 12. Alba 03:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deactivate and sell to the Jawas. One article is sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IG-88 is the appropriate title for information on this subject; there is no need for a second article with a title people are unlikely to type into the search box. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request quick delete per WP:SNOWBALL. --EEMeltonIV 11:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no need for a duplicate article. You know your article is on shaky ground when you feel you need to state your justification for creating the article in the introduction. 23skidoo 12:48, 24 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.