This section is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This section is no longer live.
The result of the debate was to keep this article pending results of Forum:"If it an item does not exsist, then there is no article!". —Silly Dan _(talk) 03:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this thing didn't exsist at all, I just think it would be better presented in a section of the HoloNet article, along with any other mistakes that HNN news reported IU, such as the death of Halagad Ventor.

Support

1. .... 01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
2. 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Unlike that, this is an entirely new thing that, er, doesn't exist. And even though I know folks want to delete these too, we have articles for fake superweapons like the Nostril of Palpatine. - Lord Hydronium 01:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
   • Yes, I know. And we shouldn't. Otherwise we should have Darth Vader, explaining that it was a Sith name and such. .... 01:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Super-class Star Destroyer, Nostril of Palpatine, Jenos Idanian, Sunfighter Franchise - we have no shortage of articles on things that don't actually exist. jSarek 01:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
   • As I say, doesn't make it right. Also, SSD is a different case, since it really does exsist, it's just that Saxton wanked it back out of exsistence. Bah! .... 02:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Keep. There is a great philosophical tradition of non-existent objects (Alexius Meinong, for one). But better than that, write the article about the mistake, and don't describe it as an object. I'd honestly like to see an article on the _title_ Darth Vader, rather than the person, Anakin Skywalker 72.243.74.73 02:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
4. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Oh, are you kriffing kidding? Chaos, no. -- Darth Culator ^{(Talk)(Kills)} 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Never!!! -- SFH 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
7. Adamwankenobi 00:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
8. Mentioned in canon news source, so even if non-existant, its canon. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
9. If we keep this, it has to be rewritten somewhat. The intro is hilarious (the Bimkall Sector did not exist, that's just dumb, try it was a fictional sector blah blah blah). Chack Jadson 12:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

   Fictional implies that it was intentional fiction presented as such, rather than a hoax or mistake assumed to be real. The intro is supposed to be "hilarious": I did not take this article particularly seriously when writing it. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

10. LtNOWIS 13:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.