Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Space Marines

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 Speedy Keep without prejudice to renomination, nominator sockuppet of indefblocked user SirFozzie 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Space Marines

I was going through wiki as I normally do and I saw that there were a lot of pages connected together that had no sources besides a primary source and contained information that was all in-universe and seemed not to exist beyond in-universe. I had to create a name to go through the deletion process, so I don't really know if I am doing it right and its really confusing. NobutoraTakeda 04:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be subsets of the first page, lack third party sources, written from an in-universe and biased source, and are not encyclopedic: h:Night_Lords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)[reply]

COMMENT The person responsible for this nomination has been banned from Wikipedia for disruption. a[1]

Delete per WP:NOTE - None of these fictional things have received "significant coverage" from independent sources Corpx 05:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to the parent article. You're talking about one of the 7 major factions here in one of the most popular tabletop board games on earth. It has sourcing problems, yes, and could probably stand to be re-written, but the parent article should remain. I'm sure people more well-versed with tabletop gaming could add good references. --Haemo 06:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: If its about a game, why isn't there anything really mentioned about the game? I know there is mention of a game, but it seems to be fiction about characters from a fictionary world. The Mario page, another well known game character, has almost no comparable fiction. It goes through the history of his development and the different incarnations, and then includes many non-primary sources. I'm also noticing that many of the other related pages to the Chaos Space Marines seem to be equally involved in fiction and having little actually gaming. Would a merge even solve the problem? There are three pages related that seem to talk about the gaming, but even they are confusing: Chaos Weapons, Equipment and Vehicles, Vehicles of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), Vehicles of the Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). This whole thing is confusing and I don't know if a Merge would salvage it. NobutoraTakeda 06:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, it's complicated. The Warhammer universe is a tabletop board game, at its heart. But, it also is a series of books, video games, and other stuff. So, it's not only a game, it's a story as well; people get caught up in it, and write a LOT about the story. The material there is very, very crufty, which is why I'm advocating a merger of all the articles. However, there is a Wikiproject devoted to Warhammer 40,000, so they might chime in; knowing more than me. --Haemo 07:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - For reference, what is cruft? I've never heard of it, but it sounds like important jargon. If it is a story, where is the one book that its from and how do you reconcile that with the game? Would a page on Star Wars have to have fiction pieces from Star Wars video games? Or from the Star Wars card games? Or from the roleplaying games? Shouldn't there be some seperation? I suggest that the different novels listed on some of the pages include the information on their novel page instead of being lumped in with a boardgame page, or would that be wrong? NobutoraTakeda 08:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - See WP:Fancruft. Clarityfiend 09:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of computer or video games-related deletions.
Keep. Policy wonkery gone mad. —Xezbeth 07:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy exactly and how? Corpx 07:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The sub-articles need some editing to be less in-universe, that's all. But do you not find it worrying that a brand new editor comes straight to AfD to get a whole set of articles deleted, despite admitting to not knowing much about Warhammer 40,000? —Xezbeth 08:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - As I stated before, I only created a name wen I realized that you can't put an article for deletion without creating a name. And you don't need to know anything about a topic to see that its written like a book and doesn't include anything but primary sources. But what police has gone mad? Aren't you concerned that there is no third party source and no objective information on the topic? NobutoraTakeda 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Warhammer 40,000 is unquestionably notable, and the Chaos Space Marines are the equivalent of a major character within the Warhammer 40,000 universe. The example given at WP:FICT of a character within a universe suitable for having a separate article is that of Noonien Soong, and there's more at Chaos Space Marines than there is for Soong. Independent reviews of Chaos within the miniatures game itself is somewhat lacking due to the fact that Warhammer 40,000 essentially has no competitor in the market, but check any of the reviews of Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War or its sequels for numerous mentions of the CSMs. Above and beyond that, we can find the official strategy to Winter Assault, an independent publication giving details of how to play the CSMs in Winter Assault, and the equivalent for Dark Crusade. Yes, the page needs a big WP:WAF cleanup, but AfD isn't the article improvement drive. --Pak21 08:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I read what you wrote and the Noonien Soong page has sources that aren't primary. I also looked at the Amazon page and those aren't legitimate reviews. Anyone could have written them just by logging in and there is no mention of the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War on the different pages that I listed. And wouldn't this information better suit a Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War page and not a page on, lets say, the Night Lords?NobutoraTakeda 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're missing the point. The books are independent publications, both of which have significant coverage of the Chaos Space Marines. That's the fact being noted here, not the reviews on the Amazon pages. And with regard to Noonien Soong, it has one cited fact in it, that's all. --Pak21 15:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which books? The Strategy guides? If the books are the strategy guides, then aren't they more primary sources? I know the "Official Strategy guide" probably is. There are no independent magazine articles talking about the Night Lords and no scholarly books talking about how Chaos Space Marines are a vital part of gaming. I like Haemo's idea of merging, because no one has stated that the individual groups are mentioned in the strategy guides. Question: if the information is coming from a stategy guide to make a Wikipedia page, why not instead have a page that discusses the Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War game talk about it and not have a second page? I doubt that I can justify making a page devoteed to a character from Resident Evil games with my only source being a strategy guide as oppose to justifying making a page for the whole game itself. Question 2: If the topic is unquestionably notable, how come I could only find fan pages and primary sources when searching the internet on the individual groups? I looked through over 100 pages and nothing really notable popped up. NobutoraTakeda 15:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you really trying to claim Warhammer 40,000 isn't notable? Warhammer 40,000, Warhammer Fantasy and Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game (the latter two also being Games Workshop productions) dominate the miniature wargaming market, and have done so for many years. If so, you need to re-evaluate your definition of notability. --Pak21 16:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Please show me where I listed any of those pages on the above list. If those items are notable, then why don't you instead merge the information into the pages? Also, I would like you to provide some third party sources to the notability of the pages in question, if you think they are notable. I would like to see what they say and I am sure it would better inform everyone else. You also didn't address most of my questions or my points, which makes me think that you are practing fanwank argument. I am sorry if that term may be deemed offensive, but I say it only to summarize what is said on the page describing fans who see something as notable when the community doesn't have any way to determine it. NobutoraTakeda 16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I said "Warhammer 40,000 is unquestionably notable". You said "If a topic is unquestionably notable". What else am I supposed to think you are referring to? Anyway, as you are now verging on personal attacks, I will discontinue this debate with you. --Pak21 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I stand by my analysis earlier, because the page mentioned that the fans tend to be touchy about the subject. I did not mention Warhammer 40,000 at all. I mentioned pages that may relate to the subject though. You over responded to something that I didn't originally say. The least you could do is apologize instead of accusing me for confusing you on the word "topic" refering to the article for deletion that is the page's topic. NobutoraTakeda 17:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - ... continued from my questions below, where I am tentative about the point is that I do not see the distinction between this article and the Noonien Soon article, once you throw a secondary source into the mix. To address the point that Pak21 tangentially referred to, the "official strategy guide" is produced by an independent publisher likely authorized by the game manufacturer. It would be akin to citing an authorized "Making of..." production on an article on the film itself. I do not know if you would consider that primary or not. If we do include a secondary source such as this article from IGN, which I would say is as credible as the imdb citation for Noonien Soong, does that justify the remainder of this article? Granted, the citation there is a throw-away line, it is actually more relevant to the full article included here than the Soong citation is to the Soong article (which deals with only a spot of trivia contexted within the whole article). Please keep in mind that I am not trying to refute your assertion as much as understand how we delineate notability for the sake of an "encyclopedic" nature. --70.91.8.169 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and relist individually. The articles cite references and do not all have the same Wikipedia policy violation in common. Each article needs to be evaluated separately. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the one basically the topic for the rest, like a page devoteed to Tolkien's horses and then a page devoteed to an individual horse from Lord of the Rings? NobutoraTakeda 15:23, 15 July 2007
Keep all they may need some individual work, but within the 40K universe they are notable. If these are deemed non-notable, then the vast majority of 40K/WFB/LotR/other GW articles would fall under the same hammer. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the vast majority of those pages are written in-universe and do not have third party sources, then the vast majority of those pages don't belong on Wikipedia. While looking through the link on fancruft, there was an essay on Pokemon used as an excuse to keep other pages. Saying that some other page would need to be deleted for not complying with Wikipedia is not an excuse not to delete this page. If you feel that the vast majority of the pages have the same inadequacies, maybe they should all be added to the list. NobutoraTakeda 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice this account has just joined today, for the apparent single purpose of deleting articlesDGG (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well duh. I stated that at the very top of the page. You can't put an article for deletion without a user name. Thanks for being condesending about me on every page you can possibly find. NobutoraTakeda 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Merge. As a random visitor to this page with no Warhammer background, I find the page rather useful. While I agree that having other pages that do not appear to adhere as well to policy does not, in itself, justify the presence of this page, I will hazard the controversial statement that perhaps the interpretation of the policy is too strict. Learning of this policy just from this comment -- I have subsequently realized that an innumerable number of pages on the wikipedia fail this policy and have provided me with a lot of substantative and important information, and I would hazard to -- as you contextualize it -- challenge them all. I suppose it is the community's call -- but I for one find that the strict application of that particular policy to be counterproductive to (what I assume is) the basic tenent of the site. If we do strictly adhere with the policy, I'm sure that there must be some Warhammer aficionado that knows of some tabletop rpg periodical of sorts that notes this topic. Though, in many degrees, I feel like the relevancy of the citation will likely be relatively weak in comparison to the content of this article. With that noted, I believe that is, perhaps, the crux of this policy -- that even in topics where secondary sources do cite the topic, it is often the primary sources that provide the most pertinent information to be cited, and the secondary sources, in effect, become superfluous. --70.91.8.169 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If primary sources are providing information, why do I have no clue about their actual connection to a table top game until after I spent four hours to try and track down history and third party sources for the page? And which version did you read? Encyclopedias are all about third party sources, not primary. A page about the Bible isn't a summary of the Bible, but how it impacts others, which requires a third party. Encyclopedia's are not plot summaries and shouldn't be plot summaries. If someone wants one, why don't they buy footnotes? NobutoraTakeda 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point tentatively conceded. What we then need is a wiki-cliffnotes... Outside of that, please see my comments under the Noonien Soon thread... --70.91.8.169 02:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would put up an AFD for it but I already have two controversial ones right now active and I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. I'm already knee deep trying to rationalize to people so they don't think I'm just spamming a delete without having a legitimate reason. NobutoraTakeda 03:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles need clean up, but this is not cause for deletion. Notable within their own universe and sources can be provided from such easily. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable within a universe isn't notable without. What do you think of a possibility of a merge and cut excess information? If the excess is needed, why not have a generic history page, because many of the people seem to overlap with their relation to that Horus guy. NobutoraTakeda 15:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how one can argue non-notable for groups that appear in: Dozens of novels, 4 editions of one of the most popular table top game, various spin off table top games, a collectible card game, and at least 3 recent computer games (and others previously). Lack of outside sources might be a valid criticism, but that's one you could apply almost universally to works of fiction that aren't top tier popular culture.

--Falcorian ^(talk) 01:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are mentioned in those books, then why don't you put the information on the pages about the books instead of seperating it, making OR claims that they are the same group as the other, merging information from a table top game and fantasy fiction and having a page without third party sources? By having those pages, you are creating OR, creating redundancy with book pages, and lack verifiable sources.

I'm sorry, I can't follow what you're saying, could you go over it again? I don't see how claiming that the same group which shows up in multiple works is the same group is OR, nor do I see how a lack of third party sources makes the numerous primary sources useless, as the information presented in the pages is citable with book/game/card/etc. sources without interpretation by the contributor. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you combine multiple texts not written by the same author and only loosely connected by the publisher and then use them to write a fictional history and call it "canon", then you are performing OR synthesis.NobutoraTakeda 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On this will have to disagree then. --Falcorian ^(talk) 17:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well written, encycopaedic article. Mathiastck 16:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a well written article lacking any third party sources and serves no function besides as a page to link to other pages that make up the organization and without any real explanation to how any of it connects to the table top game, right? NobutoraTakeda 18:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been stated before, the articles are about organizations and entities within the Warhammer 40,000 universe. This means that although the entities/organizations have a role and are represented within the table-top game, much of their history does not relate directly towards the playing of the game, and this is what is being documented here. Another example would be the information regarding the EVE Online universe, as well as World of Warcraft. The articles about the history associated with those universes in-fiction often do not have sources, yet they are not up for deletion. Similarly, I see no reason why these articles on the Chaos Space Marine Legions should be singled out unfairly and inconsistently. Nonagonal Spider 06:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of it. When I first started reading Warhammer 40k books I knew almost nothing about it. Due to the information contained her I have made connections in stories that I otherwise would not have. I am sure I am not the only one who collects information from here. I do not disagree that it needs to be cleaned up but I would not rule out an extremely popular game or series of books because of lack of information or validity. Information is being added and created all the time by the black library, that is the fun of all of this. Warhammer is constantly evolving. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.178.27.243 (talk • contribs).

Just a quick note to say that it is possile that User:NobutoraTakeda is a sockpuppet for indefinetly blocked User:SanchiTachi (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/SanchiTachi) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 07:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should I report your comment to the noticeboard for lying in order to sway a vote over a topic you are vanobsessed with or will you delete your accusations and apologize? NobutoraTakeda 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wouldn't be lying because that is actually what the checkuser's findings were if you read the diff link; that you are possibly SanchTachi. I'd say there is no reason to delete that... or apologize.--Isotope23 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to say that I am that person and its only a "possibly" because that person put it up to begin with. The names and IPs weren't actually checked, so you can't claim that there was any result. NobutoraTakeda 20:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem more than a little defensive about this. Checkuser said "possible," that's all. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for clarification, but it looks to me like Mackensen (talk · contribs) did run a checkuser and it came up with results indicating a possibility that there is a link.--Isotope23 20:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The names and IPs weren't actually checked, so you can't claim that there was any result." That's news to me. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misread you then, because it says "No comment on the IP addresses" which makes it seem that you didn't do the check and that you only guessed at what it could be. What does a possible even mean? I either am someone or I am not. Maybe you are possibly wrong. Maybe you are possibly a robot. Maybe you are possibly eighty midgets in a large suit. NobutoraTakeda 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep everything. To be blunt i've read all of the above and am wondering why on earth someone who clearly knows little about the warhammer world is so vehemently interested in denying such a valauable resource to those who do want to use it. I'm pretty annoyed as someone has already deleted some infomration on a site i used to look at and now they are trying again. The rationale given above should be more than suficient for you to remove the deletion request and move on - if nothing else the majority (i.e. the keepers) should outweight the minority (i.e. deleters) in this case. Hence a democratic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.51.84 (talk • contribs)

That is a nice thought, but Wikipedia isn't a democracy.--Isotope23 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is an extensive source of all the information here, not only provided by Gamesworkshop (the company that runs this) but also tens of books (www.blacklibrary.com)that cover most of these in detail. I, among it seems others here, use these pages to read more about my interest, that is, the story side of Warhammer 40k. This is not made up fanfic, or something as frivilous as the individual horses in LOTR, as the originator of this deletion erroneously is pointing out, but more akin to the individual teams of the National Football League. I created a Chaos army of Thousand Son's Chaos Marines, and when I wanted to know a little more about the established history of them, where they come from, their stylings, etc... outside of the Tabletop aspect, I came to these sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kill Mage (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the above is the user's first edit. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One of the two central factions in a notable fictional universe - Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus is that the Chaos Space Marines are notable, but what about the other pages listed? They lack third party sources that are necessary for notability. NobutoraTakeda 01:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main article for the Chaos Space Marines is unquestionably notable, as has been established. The splinter articles are about specific factions within the CSM, the differences between which are stark in-universe and make up a good deal of the details of the background information not just for the CSM, but for Warhammer 40,000 as a whole. Given, however, that they exist as constructs purely in-universe it isn't reasonable to expect that a third-party source is going to have any interest in providing information about them. However, that fact alone is not cause enough to call them irrelevant or un-notable. It'd be like saying that the differences between Rohan and Gondor are un-notable, simply because they only exist within Tolkien's fiction and have little bearing on the real world. The articles may need to be cleaned up, but not deleted. Agharo 04:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly, but more succinct and eloquent. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gondor and Rohan have been discussed in serious literary criticism. Chaos Space Marines have not. NobutoraTakeda 07:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So suddenly any work of fiction that has not been given "serious" criticism is irrelevant? A game with literally millions of players worldwide, and a faction within that game that enjoys very rich support from a huge fanbase, these are too insignificant for us to keep a wikipedia article on? We may as well delete the articles on every game that had the gall to get a book written about it, or that dares to have a plotline or setting extending beyond the game itself. The Halo series would be a good example of a large set of articles written in essentially the same style, but the most any of them have recieved is a notice to clean up the articles to make them more relevant. Agharo 14:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats part of notability. You can't include gossip or other types of sources. Halo has recieved serious criticism from third party sources. I haven't seen many of the articles, but I do know that as one of the biggest selling video games of all time and focus of many E3s, they have recieved coverage in over 30 major video game magazines plus other areas. I could not find anything even close for Chaos Space Marines. NobutoraTakeda 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how hard you looked, then. Dawn of War, the video game series based off of Warhammer 40,000 (and including the Chaos Space Marines as one of the main factions) has recieved coverage from numerous gaming magazines, including PC Gamer among others. As some people have pointed out, Warhammer 40,000 (along with Warhammer Fantasy Battle and the Lord of the Rings miniatures game, all of which are produced by the same company) almost completely dominates the miniature wargaming market, meaning that there are extremely few third-party groups to give it criticism. Agharo 15:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Why dont all the pages of Chaos space marines be merged into one? Sepearate pages may be too much, (And I say this as a player of Warhammer 40K) but, Imperial Space Marines (the good guys) have their own pages per chapter (most of them). Chaos Marines dont have individual Codexs (rules, stats etc) published like some Imperial Space marine chapters, but they are all different chapters, and have different tendancies/pros/cons. This may be because Im a noob, but can you specify third party sources, so I know when to stop digging my grave? Ghostridernz 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)GhostridernzGhostridernz 07:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this? That was a proposed idea for a merge that I believed would help. If the fiction information needed to be split from the page, it could be given a Chaos Space Marines in fiction page or something of a similar title.

Keep/Merge As mentioned, Chaos Space Marines as a whole are a significant part of Warhammer 40,000 which is notable. The individual Chaos Space Marine chapters may not warrant their own pages. The articles, if kept as is, also have to be changed to be more encyclopedic.Oderic 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep based on mounting evidence that the nominator is a sockpuppet of an indefblocked user. Blueboy 96 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep As the nominator NobutoraTakeda was found to be a sockpuppet of SanchiTachi Whispe ring 12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep ahahaha, if the guy was really me, I would have never put up a deletion for the pages. Each are obviously important on their own as they are variants with even their own miniatures produced. Thousand Sons, Plague Marines, Noise Marines, and Khorne Beserkers show that at least four of the variants are notable as part of the production line. The Black Legion was notable for having Abaddon the Despoiler who lead the Eye of Terror campaign. Others have been the complete focus of a book. Clearly, they are all individually notable. This is precious and hillarious though. Speedy keep, because everyone says its me and I say speedy keep. Case closed! SanchiTachiAdmitted sock

Closing this. Socks are not allowed to nominate articles for deletion. SirFozzie 21:06, 19 July 2007 (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.