Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars speculation

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 WP:SNOW delete per reasons outlined below, including WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOT. — Deckill er 02:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars speculation

This entire article is speculation. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. Thin Arthur 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure fancruft. Thin Arthur 14:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FANCRUFT, WP:V, and WP:CBALL. Nenyedi • ^{(Deeds•Talk)} 14:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just want to note WP:FANCRUFT is not policy or even a guideline, it's only a POV essay. While personally I like it (for the most part), I don't think it should be used as a "per" reason in AFDs. Tendancer 15:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please read WP:ONLYESSAY. Thin Arthur 15:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also be sure to check out WP:ILIKEIT. Jauerback 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What makes you even think I like this article? Just pointing out the rampant lack of underestanding about the difference between policy/guideline/essays the proliferate through these AFD discussions. The goal may be valid, the arguments given are not. Please read WP:ONLYESSAY and WP:ILIKEIT again as well, esp the sections on 'cruft' as well as the disclaimers on the top. Tendancer 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Oh, I don't know. Maybe where you said, "While personally I like it (for the most part)..."? Jauerback 21:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I apologize. I see you were referring to WP:FANCRUFT. Jauerback 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Davnel03 15:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlike Sherlock Holmes speculation, which is entirely about a series of published works on the topic, this appears to be pure speculation by the editor. If there are sources that can substantiate the text, as I think there are in the Holmes page, then I would consider keeping it, but since it appears to be the speculation of some editor, it's almost WP:OR more than anything else. JCO312 15:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsubstantiated original research per above comments. The title says it all. EyeSerene^TALK 19:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. J-stan ^Talk_Contribs 19:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Jauerback 20:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced original research. Jay32183 22:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the difference between this and Sherlock Holmes speculation is like night and day; with this one being the time of day which gets deleted for being unsourced speculation --Haemo 00:08, 18 August 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.