Forum:TC:Narmonday

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:Narmonday

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 or, if the page was deleted, in the Senate Hall rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. OOM 224 (he/him) 16:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

== Narmonday (history - links - logs - delete - protect)==

Hi, Jason Fry and I have spent a lot of time trying to localize this planet in the book but without success. I assume it's fanon. Hk 47 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Delete

1. Hk 47 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
2. Imperators II^(Talk) 10:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
3. Well that's one way to sneak in fanon, give it an actual source and hope nobody checks it :p Rsand 30 (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
4. Weird that there was a warning for fanon on the talk page of the editor, but nothing followed that... NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 11:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
5. Dropbearemma (she/her) 11:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
6. 01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 11:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
7. Bonzane10 (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
8. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) 14:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
9. Wok142 (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
10. —spookywilloww^talk 15:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
11. OOM 224 (he/him) 16:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
12. Fan26 (Talk) 17:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
13. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 17:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
14. Samonic ^(Talk) 18:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
15. LucaRoR ^(Talk) 19:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
16. Loqiical (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
17. JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 16:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Comments

• Isn't suspected fanon what the {{Verify}} template is for? Asithol (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Has the source provided on the page actually been checked? - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, Hk confirmed so above. JediMasterMacaroni^(Talk) 17:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's been checked, thoroughly, by two people. I have not verified it myself, which is why I'm not voting, and I suspect many of those who have voted have not verified it themselves either. Whether something appears in a source is a factual matter that shouldn't even be a thing up to a vote: one person has asserted some information, two others have challenged it, and the burden of proof now falls on the party who asserted the info in the first place. That's how {{Verify}} works. Asithol (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
    • I'm aware of how the template works. My point of conjecture on whether or not it's been verified was due to the fact Hk's initial statement for the TC was unclear to me. There is no harm in me verifying whether or not the source has for certain been checked. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
      • Right, sorry. This was unclear because I was replying to you, but more of that reply was directed at the decision to TC it rather than {{Verify}} it, which wasn't your decision. Asithol (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Three people have now thoroughly checked the source. I have gone through the book, and there is no mention of Narmonday anywhere. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 16:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)