Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Vader's helmet

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 delete. Wizardman 17:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darth Vader's helmet

There are no sources that are independent of the subject listed that grant notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the relevant info regarding Darth's helmet should be covered in the Darth Vader page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~& Merge~~-redundant article, all information should be merged into the Darth Vader article; Non-Notable to have it's own article.--~S R S~ 03:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge isn't acceptable per WP:GFDL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what I meant by that. =) SOrry.~S R S~ 04:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it confused me for a while too when people would just link to the GFDL as if it explained it. Wikipedia's license requires that the history of any contribution be maintained, so merging information and then deleting the article actually breaks this, though I agree that it's not very obvious - a merged article should just be redirected so that the contribution history is maintained. See WP:MAD for an explanation. Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough information to have its own article. JIP | Talk 04:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any relevant sourced content should be added to the Darth Vader article. The helmet doesn't warrant its own article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless the content is not already present in the main article, otherwise delete. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If the information is accurate, it should be covered by the Darth Vader article.--Berig (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to kabuto. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Darth Vader if there's any relevant information not already included there. This article does not do much on its own. ~ mazca ^talk 14:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Darth Vader is my favorite villain, but Wikipedia is not Wookiepedia. Kabuto and Stahlhelm cover this trivia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I like Vader, his helmet itself isn't notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect without deletion as the article contains sourced out of universe information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Helmet is not notable independantly from Darth Vader, and I'm sure that article can accomidate these two lines somewhere. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 21:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the content to Darth Vader. A non-admin close and redirect might be in order(?). --EEMIV (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also reworked the dubious sourcing -- rather than attributing it to an unreliable fan site, it is instead reworded a cited to the text the fan site quotes. Despite not itself being a reliable source, I trust echostation well enough to be accurate when it claims to quote verbatim from a text. --EEMIV (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speedy close thanks to EEMIV. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, and now that it has been merged it must be redirected without deletion per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirecting, it's a highly unlikely search term. Dorftrottel (bait) 14:46, May 8, 2008
Delete - Not notable enough. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No merge or redirecting. The helmet is not notable. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Claims of not being notable are unfounded per WP:JNN. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plus... Any useful information can be added in Darth Vader's article in a small section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If information on the subject can be added into an another atricle in a small section, then we should redirect to that section without deletion. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, there are some things to be said about Achilleus' helmet as well but that doesn't make it a searchable item. Does it? :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is to those researching props and novels, for example. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I just made significant revisions to the article and added a couple published books that provide out of universe context as references and also noted its notability in that various specific products have been made that focus on just the helmet. Please note the current revision. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please just put those in the Darth Vader article so this thing can be redirected. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge any appropriate info to Darth Vader and then delete. Dedicating a whole page on his helmet is something you'd expect from a Star Wars wiki. Spellcast (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot legally merge and delete per the GFDL. A "merge" stance cannot be a "delete" stance as well. Thus, it is looking like the consensus in this discussion, taking into account the various improvements to the article during the discussion and after the initial flood of deletes above, is that the article should be merged and redirected without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:53, 11 May 2008 (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.