Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars: Why did the Galactic Empire have to lose?


 * 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 (WP:NOR). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars: Why did the Galactic Empire have to lose?
Take your pick:fancruft, unencyclopedic, original research Daniel Case 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - only the thesis is there so far, but it's pretty clear this is going to be original research. I'll check back to be sure. ×Meegs 05:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete can't see any reason for this to be here. --Pboyd04 05:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Save This article is new and it hasn't been finished yet.
 * You're only saying that just because you created it. As the above comments indicate, it was doomed to deletion from the start and even if it wasn't, it was not likely to survive. Reread the comments up above as to why it's up for deletion and you'll understand. Wikipedia is simply not the place for this sort of thing. Daniel Case 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Update. Must have worked ... author has removed his sig from that comment, from likely embarassment. Daniel Case 06:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that even judging from the way the article begins, it seems like it will be a violation of Wikipedia policy (see No original research). Your own theories on the Galactic Empire do not qualify for Wikipedia, but they would be great elsewhere on the web. Do not take offense. ×Meegs 05:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. —Cleared as filed. 05:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The very title implies it is going to be O.R. Endomion 05:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research; obvious. --Quarl 05:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. --NeoJustin 05:40, December 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it was scripted that way! Delete. --Fire Star 05:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; also, Wikipedia articles are never written in the second person. B.Wind 05:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is not a topic which is going to be encyclopedic, regardless of how much more work goes into it. --Stormie 06:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: unencyclopedic from the title onwards -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research/speculation. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete fancruft, original "research", speculation, unencyclopaedic, non-notable, non-standard title - and probably some other things as well. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Compu  ter  Joe  13:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per all other votes (even the Save vote). --King of All the Franks 13:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. Unfinished it may be, it already reads like original research -- we know how unwelcome that is. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  13:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, oh dear. Someone seems to have missed the point.  Let's call it... per nom. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong Talk 04:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm closing this as a violation of WP:NOR, since "fancruft" is not policy :) and unencyclopedicness is too broad a topic to explain. I trust the author will not feel rejected by the Wikipedia community and will try to understand what happened by reading the appropriate policies. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:41, 2 January 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.