| rdfs:comment
| - The article is currently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 23. I don't believe it qualifies as a copyright violation (other than the technical sense, that the attribution isn't sufficient) as the source is licensed CC-BY_SA, and a cursory review of the source history suggests it wasn't simply copied and pasted from another place. The article has no references, which can be fixed, but it is written In-universe, contrary to MOS, and, IMO, would take as much work to rewrite as it would to start from scratch.
|
| abstract
| - The article is currently listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 23. I don't believe it qualifies as a copyright violation (other than the technical sense, that the attribution isn't sufficient) as the source is licensed CC-BY_SA, and a cursory review of the source history suggests it wasn't simply copied and pasted from another place. The article has no references, which can be fixed, but it is written In-universe, contrary to MOS, and, IMO, would take as much work to rewrite as it would to start from scratch. My specific suggestion is to userfy (and no-index) the article to the primary contributor, so that the editor can look into whether some portions might be merged elsewhere, or a new article should be written in an acceptable perspective. SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC) It should be noted that an attempted was made to convert this to a redirect, but it was reverted here. That may still be an option, but it clearly was opposed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC) No, it was not "clearly opposed". That editor is a persistent vandal which has a dynamic IP and has been repeatedly asked to discuss and blocked. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 06:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC) By clearly opposed, I mean it was reverted, so not accepted by at least one editor. I didn't use the word consensus; apologies if that was implied. It may still be the right option; I simply wanted to point out that we cannot simply do that and be done with it, there needs to be a consensus.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk ). — Frankie (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Delete - nom CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 06:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)