Star Wars Fanon

Star Wars Fanon:Deletion page

46,446pages on
this wiki

The Star Wars Fanon deletion page is the page on Star Wars Fanon to discuss the deletion of articles, templates and other entries on the Wiki. For the majority of necessary deletions, a user may simply add {{Delete}} to a page when necessary. However, if a user disagrees with the speedy deletion or if a user wants to propose the deletion of an entry instead, the user may place {{DeleteTalk}} instead to create a discussion page.

To create a discussion page, one simply has to click on the link given by the latter template, or create the page manually as [[Star Wars Fanon:Deletion page/Article name]]. Then, the user formally sets up their reasoning for the proposed deletion, a voting section, and a discussion section. All deletion discussions must be categorized under Category: Deletion discussions, and be added the list of discussions at the bottom of this page.

Nobody may remove the template from the page proposed for deletion until the discussion is over; generally, a discussion and voting is held open for only one week, but it may close earlier than that if some form of consensus is reached throughout the discussion. Users should not violate the terms of the consensus, which would be either the verdict reached through voting or an agreement reached throughout a discussion.

Users may nominate any articles, images, templates, or categories they deem necessary to delete for a deletion discussion.

Deletion discussions

Below is a list of deletion voting currently going on. Closed discussions can be viewed in the archives.

Category:Nathan Wojlaker ( history - links - Wojlaker logs)

Support (4)

  1. I'd go for deleting this category: category pages, as the name suggests, would serve to catalogize content, whereas the author would intend to use this category in places where a link to the Nathan Wojlaker article would suffice. TK-999 (Talk) 21:13, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  2. For insufficient category breadth; per below discussion, it really can't be a category of more than one. SakarosTalk 21:29, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  3. As the one who first placed the tag, I concur. The author has added a number of extraneous categories of this nature which add no real value to the categorization of the wiki. Firedance 22:34, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
  4. I don't see any reason for a character to have their own separate category. Alexander of Volzhsky



I have not found anything wrong about the category I created. The only thing I can think is wrong is that it's subcategory in Barsen'thor. However, the Nathan Wojlaker is a place that expands to other article for the Nathan Wojlaker article. So it would have the same catergories as the article. As I have seen I have done no relative harm to others except posting that sub-category. I would try to offend or harm anyone's beliefs they do what they do on the wiki. The Wiki network is a place where people can unwind and share Ideas. I would hate to ruin that for anyone.Unsigned comment by Annabethlover1652 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

  • What other articles do you envision being in the category? It seems to me that it might be one thing if it was "Articles in the Nathan Wojlaker universe" (might or might not survive deletion review, but it's certainly broader), whereas a category called "Nathan Wojlaker" really can't reasonable include any other articles. SakarosTalk 16:38, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

A story ( history - links - story logs)

Support (2)

This is a clear violation of both the Crossovers and Joke articles portions of the Content policy. I got the impression that the author was and is clearly trolling, with no real desire to present quality content to the site. I tagged the article in question as "Vandalism/Spam" for lack of better terms; I accept that this was my mistake. Firedance 21:12, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

The author didn't use proper grammar, split up the word wall into paragraphs, or add any categories, and not to mention the various spelling errors. I won't be against deleting it if the author cleans up the page and gives a more specific name than just "a story." –Alexander 02:46, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Oppose (2)

  1. Even using Joke Article and Crossover analysis rather than Vandalism/Spam, I don't think the article is sufficiently bad to merit deletion without some attempt at a lesser remedy first. Beginning with the first Participation Guideline to "Assume good faith", I start with the assumption that Gojimon is an inexperienced author. I fully agree that the article has numerous flaws—spelling, grammar, and structure, to name just three—and certainly I personally don't care for any "Star Wars meets Earth" stories. But, as I read the policies, an article has to be bordering on incomprehensibility to merit deletion solely for grammar issues, and more experienced writers' personal distaste for a story's plot is not, by itself, a deletable offense.
    Specifically, the Crossover policy requires a fictional universe crossing into Star Wars; the policy is thus inapplicable to Star Wars interacting with the real world, and unless I'm greatly mistaken, there are articles on the Wikia which similarly mix our galaxy and the galaxy far, far away which have so far survived deletion. As far as the Joke Article analysis goes, while I feel it's a closer call, I read "articles that are solely intended as a joke" (emphasis added) pretty restrictively. Combined with the obligation to assume good faith, I don't think there's enough evidence that it's supposed to be a joke and nothing else, rather than simply the author's idea of what a good story should be. I also note that Gojimon has not trolled on others' pages or done anything else disruptive to the Wikia, which I have usually seen in others who just want to write nonsense to be disruptive.
    In sum, I personally find "A story" odd, unappealing from a plot perspective, and maddening from a grammar perspective...but my opinions about the merits of a story should be irrelevant in assessing the good faith of the author unless the evidence is truly overbearing that the page is meant to do nothing but waste space on the Wikia. I don't think the deletion proposal meets that demanding standard. SakarosTalk 21:40, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per Sakaros. The article, in my eyes, does not count as a crossover or joke. Rather, it is simply a poorly worded/formatted article, and I'm not going to delete something for just that offense. That said, I think the author has an obligation to clean the page up; the text of the narrative should be in a subpage with better spelling and grammar. I'm sure the author would be willing to work with us in this capacity. Thanks Savage1138 23:45, November 13, 2015 (UTC)


I find it highly unlikely that anyone, regardless of age or level of experience, could write content like that in question in complete seriousness. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems intentionally over-the-top, not unlike a lot of the "troll bait" I've seen during my time on Wikipedia. However, as we can't be certain of the author's original intent, I suppose I cede you the point on the basis of assuming good faith. Firedance 23:17, November 13, 2015 (UTC)

In light of this charming development, now I would be more supportive of some administrative action. I think the comment, in addition to being juvenile and classless, undermines the presumption of good faith. SakarosTalk 22:59, November 25, 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted that comment and left the user a message. I'm still not ready to delete this page completely, but we'll see how this plays out. Savage1138 23:17, November 25, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki