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 No consensus. StarNeptune^{Talk to me!} 15:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Dark side death explosion (talk - history - links - logs) 2 Keep 3 Merge with Dark side of the Force 4 Delete 5 Comments

Dark side death explosion (talk - history - links - logs)Edit

This article really doesn't make much sense on its own; it's based off of scant information and the name is dreadful.

KeepEdit

1. This started as my own objection to the FAN of Joruus C'baoth. I told the nominator that there must be some article he could connect that redlink to, but instead the user created this. Cleanup, expansion, and perhaps a new name (even though it's conjectural to begin with) could make this into something viable. The subject is even explained somewhat in some EU—the Thrawn Trilogy, if I'm not mistaken. Graestan^(Talk) 05:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
2. I really don't understand the benefit of merging the article. I for one would like to know more about the subject. Was it an intentional part of RotJ, or a visual that Zahn misinterpreted? When did writers start ignoring it? Is there now a clear set of rules for when it happens, and if so, what are they? I think there must have been some retconning going on, since Luke seemed certain C'baoth would explode in spite of the fact that none of Jerec's Dark Jedi (nor Shadowspawn probably) did. --Andrew Nagy 07:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
3. For what it's worth, keep per Nagy. Captain Daal 14:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Keep but rename. It's a definite, distinct, canon phenomenon, but boy is that an ugly conjectural name. jSarek 02:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Keep and rename per jSarek. Din's Fire 997 02:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Keep and rename. Too specific to be lumped together with the Dark Side. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
7. Keep and rename, per Riff. Hobbes^{(Tiger's Lair)} 03:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
8. Keep and rename, changed my mind. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 17:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Dark side of the ForceEdit

1. I'd say merge it with the above article as one of the effects of use of the dark side.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, merge it to dark side and get rid of that hideous name. It's awful. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 15:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
3. As much as I love the goofy name, I think a merger is desirable for the time being. KEJ 17:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Merge into the article. Despite the lack of info about the topic, we have got three instances of it happening. Thunderforge 02:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
5. NighthawkLeader 03:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
6. We decided to merge a lot Force power variants -- I suppose merging a Force effect into another article is consistent with that. —Silly Dan _(talk) 22:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
   Merge it. - JMAS 02:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Name makes me chuckle, but merging is best option for me. Unit 8311 20:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
8. I agree, merge it because the name is awful. It should be part of a section or subsection about the effects of the Dark Side. Cyfiero II 06:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
9. Per Dan. --Imperialles 06:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

DeleteEdit

CommentsEdit

I'm abstaining from this one because I'm just not sure whether we should keep it or delete it. If it is kept, it should definitely be renamed. And whether we keep it or not, I think Andrew Nagy's comments do need to be recorded in the BTS of either the Dark Side page or the kept/renamed/whatevered DSDE page, mostly because (like he mentioned) Luke totally expected C'baoth to blow up. Why don't other Sith do that? Was that the Death Star reactor doing that and Zahn was mistaken, or does everybody just ignore that because they're unsure of the rules like they used to be over Jedi fading away. Those are really good points and something that is definitely questioned, so it should be addressed that that is unknown SOMEWHERE. Wildyoda 19:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)