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 Keep. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:25, December 10, 2010 (UTC)
This is just a father and a daughter and the source does not give their family any distinctive quality at all. In fact, it just says her father was a smuggler and that she eventually became a smuggler, not that their family business was smuggling.
Xicer saves the day. Bella'Mia 00:18, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, the blog entry should give us a BTS section. Perhaps drawing attention to it with a TC could actually result in turning it into a CA or GA? :-P -- Darth Culator(Talk) 05:10, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
This one gets special treatment because of the literal canonical mention, but two-person family articles should still be put through the TC process. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:14, December 6, 2010 (UTC)
FYI, S&V 26 actually mentions the "Dym family" directly. Stats on the Dusty Duck from S&V 26: "Manufacurer: Dym family (custom special); Affiliation: Dym family, Rango Tel" The bit about them being smugglers should be removed, though Hedec Ga's blog article on the DB entry mentions it being the "family business." Xicer9(Combadge) 03:25, November 30, 2010 (UTC)