Star Wars Fanon:Deletion page/Lightning

This page is the deletion discussion regarding Lightning. I was never really planning to do this, but I think it has to be done upon taking a look at the article again. The article fails all accepted standards across the board. The author has been told of the problems of the page (not counting story content in this regard), such as clean up and fanonification issues. Have they done anything about it? No, they haven't. It seems to me that the author is more concerned with screaming at us for stating our opinion on his article than he is with actually putting in an effort to improve it. Just taking a look at this article will show you the problem with standards.

Now this brings me to another bone of contention: the quality of the story in the article. Normally, I wouldn't take it into account, but in this regard it's not exactly the storyline but rather how it's presented. The character is a complete Mary Sue, there are rampant POV issues, the talents and abilities section is one giant list and, overall, it's just really bad. I don't really need to go into anymore detail with that, because this article is generally accepted as the worst article on the Star Wars Fanon Wiki. Quite frankly, and I generally don't say things like this, this article is an insult to everyone else on this entire website because when non-SWF members discuss the Star Wars Fanon Wiki, this is article is frequently pointed to as being representative of the Star Wars Fanon standards.

Because this is likely going to be a major vote due to the controversial nature of this article, a sudden surge of keep or delete votes will not determine the article's fate if those votes come in only after a few days. Regardless of whether there is overwhelming votes for deletion or keeping, this article needs to remain on the deletion nominations track for at least one week (until December 12, 2008), at which time the article's fate will be determined unless more time for the discussion and/or vote is required. If you need to know how many mainspace edits you have, please use Special:Editcount. I will also remind you that you must meet the requirements of the voting policy to vote, and because of the controversial nature of the article I also feel it is important to point out that personal attacks against the author of this article will be delt with in accordance with all of our relevant policies. That is all I have to say for now. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete

 * 1) As the (somewhat reluctant) proposer. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Normally, I wouldn't care about this if not for Brandon's claim that people judge all of us based on what we have in our gutters. -MPK (MPK's Talk Page)|undefined 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep

 * 1) Despite its incredible uber-awesome mary sue-esque, it seems like a reasonable amount of work has still been put into this article; or at least, more than other articles on this site. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Please keep all discussion on this deletion nomination in this section rather than in the voting section. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In response to Joe's comment in the first vote of the keep section, why should we give this user more time to fix it? The article has existed for nearly a year, and the author has been told what he needs to do to correct it in a non-sarcastic way (aka, not on the talk page). I spent (or for a more applicable word: wasted) some of my time last year rewriting this article only to improve the quality of the writing, not the story. As for story criticisms, I spent even more time reviewing it. You can find my review here in the Critic's Lounge. This makes it clear that he would rather go on believing that this is the greatest thing since Jesus's resurrection, instead of making necessary changes. You're asking for a week; we've given him ten months. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well first, I changed my comment around before I saw your post above. Second, the only reason that I'm voting to keep this article is because there are a number of articles of lower quality than this one. I can find some examples if you'd like. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 00:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, normally I wouldn't care about this, but ultimately my main concern is this: Why are we only doing it with this article, rather than a few others one could mention? Why does this article warrant such action more than any other? -MPK (MPK's Talk Page)|undefined 01:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 01:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't exactly do every article at once. Precedence must be established. - Brandon Rhea (talk) (contribs) 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So, just to confirm, you're planning to nominate a number of other articles for deletion as well? (As in, hundreds?) -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I myself? No, not exactly. What I'm doing is establishing a precedent for future deletion of articles, and attempting to rid this wiki of an article that is specifically used to insult the users of this entire wiki. - Brandon Rhea <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contribs) 01:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Has the author ever stated anything like this? (This isn't intended to be sarcastic.) -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 01:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm talking about other users, more often than not those outside the wiki, using this article as an example of how everyone on SWF is, aka. they say "everyone on SWF writes like this" and do other things to insult the members of this website. - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contribs) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Which we can respond to by showing them some high quality articles/novels, like your Saga, for example. -- Joe Butler (Obi Maul12)  (Chow) 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Which they will ignore. -MPK (MPK's Talk Page)|undefined 01:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Per MPK. It's always ignored. - <font color="#1A2BBB">Brandon Rhea <font color="#1A2BBB">(talk) <font color="#1A2BBB">(contribs) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is ignored because if they will judge SWF based on its worst, they won't care how good the best is. -MPK (MPK's Talk Page)|undefined 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)