Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cut Ending to Knights of the Old Republic II

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete as an unresolved copyright violation. Please note that the content is sourced right in the article as taken from Obsidian Forum Community, a site which is clearly marked as copyrighted. No one came forward during the discussion period with any claim or evidence that this content is allowable under any of the fair use exceptions.

I will, however, note that no concensus was reached on whether there ought to ever be an article on this topic. There was a clear concensus against keeping this as a stand-alone article. The majority opinion (but short of concensus) was to merge any salvagable material into Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. I have not carried out that merge because the only non-copyvio content I saw already appeared to be well-included in the target article. This decision should not be considered precedent if a non-copyvio article is created on this topic. Rossami (talk) 20:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cut Ending to Knights of the Old Republic II
If this information is copyrighted, we can't host it here. If it isn't, it should go to Wikisource. --RickK 06:30, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete/Decapitate with a lightsaber. --FCYTravis 06:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - while this may have been content deleted from the game, it doesn't need its own entry in the Wikipedia. --Epolk 07:53, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- this is a subpage of KOTOR II, and a fairly important one for it. --maru 16:02, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This isn't tertiary source material. It isn't even secondary source material.  This is primary source material (actual scripts, verbatim, extracted from files in the game). Don't include copies of primary sources.  If the scripts had been public domain or GFDL, the right place for them would have been Wikisource.  As it is the text is at the very least covered by a non-GFDL-compatible copyright (and almost certainly infringes the copyright of the game's creator, too).  Copyvio. --Uncle G 17:05, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * That isn't an argument for deletion- that's an argument for removing the offending material and leaving the rest (and not all of the article is "primary source") alone. --maru 17:44, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * That isn't an argument for deletion &mdash; It is on Wikipedia, when there's no non-violating version of the article to revert to. We do not keep copyright violations here.  The only non-violating version of the article is in fact this, the very first edit.  Given the content, reverting to that is largely pointless.  We might as well go the whole hog and remove the entire article.  not all of the article is "primary source" &mdash; Pretty much all of this article, bar 6 sentences (and external hyperlinks), is primary source material.  Uncle G 18:40, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup to make it about the cut ending, rather than regurgitating the cut ending. -Rjo 18:08, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * You'd have to start the cleanup from this, to avoid basing it upon a copyright violation. Do you still argue for cleanup? Uncle G 18:40, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * You forget- most of the 'non-violating' stuff I added. I don't mind taking my (public domain) contributions and inserting them into the original edit. --maru 18:50, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't forget, and that is exactly what you would have to do, yes. A significant fraction of your edits were alterations to the copyright violating text, though.  And minus the script dumps, what you would make here from that beginning would fit easily into Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, which has plenty of room for 5 sentences (the 6th being irrelevant) and a few extra external hyperlinks.  Uncle G 20:10, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * Delete - primary source material, shaky legality, questionable notablility. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 18:47, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. An encyclopedia describes and summarizes, it is not a textdump. Gamaliel 18:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords minus the copyvio stuff - I think the public domain stuff and links should still exists but the article is nothing w/o the script which should be removed. Yincrash 18:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. It should never have been created as a separate article. --Woohookitty 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with the KotOR II article, dropping the primary source text and adding more content. Links to the Restoration Project and the missing content should be added to the KotOR II article. --Nufy8 20:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, definitely not worth its own article. --K1Bond007 20:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge, into KOTOR II. --Thunderbrand 20:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Why on earth go to the trouble of a merge of the small free material? There isn't anything really needful there, and, frankly, the game isn't exactly a great encyclopedia topic.  It's a great GameFAQs topic, but Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Geogre 02:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into KOTOR II. This is a good article but I can see why people feel it should not have its own article. This is an important topic because the critism for KOTOR II's has become something of large discussion. And for the above user Wikipedia has many game articles. --User:Psi edit
 * Delete copy-vio stuffing. Merge to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. --Riffsyphon1024 08:46, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete/Lightsaber it. Don't care about legal issues, but this is hardly encyclopedic material, being nothing but game resources. Also add a link to a site where this material can be found to the main KOTOR II page. --Sikon 15:58, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep once copyvio issues are dealt with. The game was forced to production early, and the ending was a major disappointment, depite the commercial success of the game. Since the game sold so many copies and was a highly anticipated sequel, I think this is notable enough for its own article. --Scimitar 15:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything that you've just said is already said in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords. What benefit is there in a duplicate article saying it again? Uncle G 21:24, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
 * Merge non-copyvio stuff. Sympleko ( &Sigma;&upsilon;&mu;&pi;&lambda;&epsilon;&kappa;&omega; ) 12:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per RickK and Uncle G. Quale 19:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge - Personally I feel that the best solution would be to wait until the Sith Lords Restoration Project is complete, then Merge it with the Main KOTOR 2 article. (unsigned comment by 80.42.153.146)
 * Keep - The article discusses the ending to a long, convoluted game with a planned epic climax likely including multiple character deaths that was left out to get the game released in time, making the end bizarre and nonsensical and robbing the entire influence system of its point. As such, there'll definitely be enough notability and demand for the subject, and enough to say about it to warrant a separate article. -- Kizor 14:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article's VFD poll is 10 days old. Still, no consensus is seen... --Sikon 16:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What are the guidelines for an inconclusive VfD? Are they to err on the side of caution? --maru 17:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I do think they are. -- Kizor
 * 8 deletes, 5 keeps, and 9 merges by my count (numbers may not add up right due to people casting votes for two positions simultaneously). So definitely not delete, since 14 > 8, but whether to merge or keep goes both ways, depending on how you factor in the Delete votes, since they could tip it either way. --maru 21:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .