Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Strife

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Strife

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. While this appears as if it might be a core part of the game background, in actual fact the majority of this material dates back to 20-year-old supplemental articles, all from the publisher, and it is seldom if ever referred to in the current game at all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through significant coverage in independent sources. Article is nothing more than pure plot summary, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is almost entirely recapitulation of backstory from the warhammer universe and so fails WP:PLOT. Beyond that the "age of strife" in warhammer 40K is not covered in independent sources, failing the WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a compelling reason to delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, that's exactly what he hasn't said. the wub "?!" 13:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.