Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gungan Council

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Gungan Council

This has got to be the single largest piece of fancruft ever created on Wikipedia. This article makes extensive use of the first-person and is littered with first-hand accounts of the "history" and goings-on of club activities, making them virtually impossible to verify. I kind of feel bad nominating such a large work for deletion ...but not that bad. Kill fancruft! CrypticBacon 09:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. A main contributor to the article removed my 'prod' tag before I brought it here. CrypticBacon 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of manuals. All this article does is state the rules of this forum, and how one can roleplay there.SoothingR 09:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per above, but put this somewhere as an example of fancruft in case it needs to be explained. All that work for nothing ... Daniel Case 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per SoothingR and Daniel Case. This is some fancruft, not needed for an encyclopaedia. --Terence Ong 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft, but make a good faith attempt to contact the creator and offer a userfy. Someone spent entirely too much time on this.--Isotope23 16:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:WEB and contact creator. Capitalistroadster 16:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per SoothingR and Daniel Case. I have to agree, the guy put in all that work for nothing.--み使い Mitsukai 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per reasons above. youngamerican (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. I left a notice on the original author's talk page here. CrypticBacon 07:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Confrom this to a higher stander of quality.
  • Comment. Possible puppet vote - the above "Do Not Delete" was left by 64.184.31.158 who had no previous edits. CrypticBacon 01:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I, 64.184.31.158, deleted the Rules Section because that had no place here. I recommend trimming down the memeber's list.
• Do Not Delete There is nothing based to your arguments; the rules have been deleted as they have seemingly caused problems - but the rest is a list of members and a history; you cannot possibly argue against that!
  • Comment. This "Do Not Delete" vote was left by me, who put in a lot of time and effort to a glorious wikipedia entry that you are all insulting because you are jealous of TGC's glory. Kypzethdurron 09:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't provoke people, please.SoothingR 11:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Do Not Delete! - This article fits wikipedia and has a place in the history of Star Wars on the internet
      • It seems like Wookipedia is more of the kind of thing for that kind of SW-related content.SoothingR 07:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host. This information should be placed on the group's own website. Stifle 14:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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.