Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palpatine as a ruler

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 Merge back to Palpatine. D e athphoenix ʕ 22:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine as a ruler[edit]

Delete Star Wars cruft. Obviously some work has gone into this and I feel a touch guilty but this doesn't belong. It's a meandering series of thoughts and comparative observations on a person that doesn't exist. "Certain of his superiority and merit, Palpatine lost no sleep over various massacres"; "Needless to say, all these facades merely masked Palpatine's ultimate goal: eternal life and power"; and later "Palpatine wrote extensively on political theory, military strategy, publishing them to considerable acclaim and circulation. Few realized that these writings would prove to be a roadmap which Palpatine himself would follow to gain and maintain his empire (in an eery parallel to the scant heed paid Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf)." Uh, no. I particularly dislike the precedent of "...as a ruler." I suppose I could live with "Churchill as a tactician" but in terms of fan-cruft it's just not encyclopedic. The main article on Palpatine may absorb some of this but it's already 66k. Marskell 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cited essentially everything in there; fancruft is a bit insulting when it is official canon material. --maru (talk) contribs 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if my def of fancruft is overbroad. And I do realize the page has many cites. But "official canon material" on any fictional topic does not in itself accord notability. Palpatine is not a person. This level of detail would be questionable for any subject. This page consists in large part of derivative observations on a movie character. If the main article can't accomodate this then you may have to consider whether it belongs at all. We have 66k on Palpatine to begin with. Marskell 22:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page was separated from Palpatine (see edit), where it's no more crufty than the rest of the article. I can't see justifying its deletion as a unique entity without creating a precendent for the parent article as well (and by extension, a lot of other sci-fi/fantasy articles). Though I'd suggest a possible retitling as something other than "Palpatine as a ruler," per nom. - Rynne 14:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love Star Wars, but this is just an unnecessary fork. Some of this information could be merged to Palpatine, but the level of detail here ("Palpatine as a writer") is just too great for a general encyclopedia. Apropriate for Wookieepedia, but not Wikipedia.--Isotope23 18:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like it either, but the Featured Article people insisted that it be split off, and I trusted them on this... --maru (talk) contribs 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? That is just ridiculous, but... Could you perhaps link me the talk page or request that it be split off? I'd be willing to reconsider some sort of rename and edit solution if a credible editor made such a request.--Isotope23 20:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yah. Look at the FA request- 'twas Silence, I think, who asked that that be split off. --maru (talk) contribs 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Palpatine, as the creator and as per Rynne. I wouldn't particularly object to a rename into a subpage of Palpatine like Palpatine/Ruler, but weren't subpages deprecated? --maru (talk) contribs 18:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Palpatine, obviously. Alba 22:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this is a fork, and today I hate forks, ever since they turned on me and jabbed me on the inside of the mouth. Ow. Croat Canuck 04:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Palpatine. Grandmasterka 05:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Wikipedia:Summary style. Jedi6 07:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Summary style is a merge or delete criterion here. This page is not summary style. Marskell 08:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It says that you can have stemmed off articles like this one if the main page is too long. The page may have to be renamed and redone though. Jedi6 08:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep. Kappa 13:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seeing as how there's a wiki for Star Wars (cited as sources), I am fully unapologetic about deleting the matter and letting the author move it over to the independent wiki. This is unencyclopedic (discussing the fictional writings of a fictional character? This is lunacy) I love Star Wars. But it's fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmx1 (talk • contribs)
Keep or merge into Palpatine, although a better name would be nice if it's kept. BryanG 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge this is clearly not notable enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. --Ben Houston 22:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kind of original material, as someone would have to research it. Merge it into another Star Wars atricle. --SpencerTC 22:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Can you explain that research comment? --maru (talk) contribs 22:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was kinda thinking/typing out loud. I mean there's nothing out there that as a main source covers this, so someone would have to research all the mentions of him in the works and weave it together. However, I think that comment (and half-baked thought) was a little off, not to mention irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Sry, I'm having one of those Wikidays. I'm changing my vote to Merge, or perhaps re-conceptualize it somehow, Star Wars Rulers or something. --SpencerTC 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes more sense. Actually, the Dark Empire sourcebook has ~5 pages devoted solely to this subject- with that material and with the help of Publius' polymathic knowledge of Star Wars (who seems to have researched all those mentions), I pulled that together. --maru (talk) contribs 00:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Merge, possibly reconceptualize --SpencerTC 00:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Palpatine (or Weak Keep). If the FA people have a problem with this, then they nead to get themselves on the same page with the rest of the eneyclopedia. Deckiller 23:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back, although that'll probably doom Palpatine's FA bid. It can still be a good article though. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palpatine's FA bid was doomed a long time ago. And it's already a GA, last I recall. --maru (talk) contribs 04:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as summary style fork from main article, though the main article could use more than a two sentence summary. If Palpatine re-organized, then this can be deleted or moved later. --maclean25 19:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Palpatine. I think this can be substantially trimmed to the point where it wouldn't bloat the main article too much. --BinaryTed 01:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Palpatine. --Wingsandsword 04:18, 1 March 2006 (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.