Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Technical Commentaries
- 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 no consensus to delete, no consensus to merge, and no consensus to move. Either of the latter two can be purused editorially to try and develop a consensus; however, there wasn't one as a result of this discussion. Cheers, Daniel 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Star_Wars_Technical_Commentaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Not a notable website. See Wikipedia:Notability for criteria for notability. Also see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction) for reasons why this website is inappropriate for Wikipedia. New guy 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete New guy 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, or maybe merge into TheForce.Net. The specific guidelines for assessing the notability of web content are at WP:WEB. I should think that such a comprehensive and supposedly contentious set of webpages must be central to much discussion about Star Wars, though I can't actually find much supporting secondary evidence on the internet. However the fact that it is also the source of two notable books is in its favour. Smalljim 16:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal - since Saxton is a published author with verifiable links about him and Lucasfilm not particularly getting along, perhaps we should move the article to Chris Saxton, and add further information on his writings? I won't vote because I have been a reader and fan of this website for ages and ages (He has a "what's updated" feature that he added after I suggested it to him sometime back in the mid 90s), so I'm biased. --Golbez 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean to call it Curtis John Saxton or Curtis Saxton (that's what he uses on his web site), and I think its a good idea. But I note that he is still a postdoc, with 9 published papers and may not yet be notable purely as a scientist. DGG 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, yeah, whatever his name is. :) I'm not saying he's notable as a postdoc or scientist, though he may be; but he DOES seem notable as an author. --Golbez 06:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean to call it Curtis John Saxton or Curtis Saxton (that's what he uses on his web site), and I think its a good idea. But I note that he is still a postdoc, with 9 published papers and may not yet be notable purely as a scientist. DGG 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article has existed for a long, long time, with no reputable citations added. Smee 09:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Move as per Golbez above; Curtis John Saxton appears to be one of the authors of the Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections series, and Amazon.com shows him as the co-author for two other SW books. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- move per consencus — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Lv Timothy (talk • contribs)
- 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.