Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planets of Warhammer 40,000

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. PhilKnight (talk) 11:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planets of Warhammer 40,000

The mother of them all, this is a massive totally un notable list of planets from the Warhammer 40,000 series which repeats plot information from other Warhammer articles in an in-universe way. It is therefore duplicative, massively trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sources can be used to verify material but not to establish notability. None of the material in this article has any real-world notability. It is already covered in appropriate detail by dedicated external 40k wikis which don't follow WP policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. All that could have been said about this article has been said. --Vhoscythe^chatter-sign 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent (see other 40k afds for explanation) sources establish the notability of the subject. the parent article does not impute notability for daughter articles. And LeGrand, it drips condescension when you tell people "WP:PERNOM" and give a copy/paste response to this AfD. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Transwikify as they apparently have their own Warmhammer 40,000 wiki - Similarly to my reason for the other 40k AFD, really this is too obscure to be of any use to the average person reading it. It is fictional and it is not written in an encyclopaedic way. However, the article is well written, so I would suggest that these guys make a 40k wiki and move it there. It would be appropriate there. Myrrideon (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris Cunningham and Protonk. Edison (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is a non-notable topic given unnecessary details that belong on another wiki. Without any coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't belong here. TTN (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you even read the links you spam? I clearly stated that the lack of coverage in reliable sources is the reason the article should be deleted. TTN (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you even look for coverage in reliable sources? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since that book is NOT about warhammer 40k, why are you adding it to articles/ and claiming it's a reliable source? Please don't waste our time with silly games like this. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Seriously, after having this one silly argument, along with the rest of them, completely shattered in dozens of AfDs recently, why do you even bother? That book obviously does not provide the necessary content to satisfy policies and guidelines (i.e. not your personal opinion on how this site should be managed). You're entitled to your own opinions, but constantly harassing people in AfDs that are backed by policies and guidelines is not helping you at all. Make your comment and leave it at that. If you see a bad comment like "Delete - This is crap" then you can do your thing. Otherwise, just focus on changing the policies and guidelines. TTN (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Because I have yet to see you make a valid argument for deletion in any AfD, which is why most of your argument are completely shattered in dozens of AfDs. This article covers a topic that satisfies any reasonable policies and guidelines and we get by now that your personal opinion of this site is incredibly exclusive, but most editors reject that limited vision. That book shows that aspects of Warhammer are indeed encyclopedic. In fact, encyclopedic enough to be covered a published book, which not all fictional universe can claim. But not just in that book, but also in these which can be use to make a good article. Should this article be improved further? Absolutely. Should it be deleted right now as it never can be improved further. Of course not. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't recall having any of my arguments ever shattered except for the period when I was an inclusionist out of ignorance towards the true purpose of this site. I have certainly "lost" in them before, but that's more because of numbers than anything. Again, we're not talking about how you think this site should be managed. We are talking about current guidelines and policies, not your imaginary versions of them. If your statements were correct, fiction would not constantly be progressing towards an encyclopedic standard. I just realized that I'm being stupid by trying to argue with you, so that'll be it from me. TTN (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it's frustrating if you are not even willing to consider helping in the effort to improve the articles under discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've read the first source you mention there. Congrats! It's not about this game at all. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable sources independent of the topic to demonstrate any inkling of notability. Primary sources don't cut it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Planets in WH40K are regularly "discovered" when GW wants to introduce a new battleground or race or nationality or whatever, and nuked just as quickly when it suits GW. They're snippets of plot most WH40K players don't know about and aren't interested in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 12:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe this content, to the extent that it is verifiable (and some good sources have been provided), is necessary to comprehensive coverage of Warhammer, which is itself a notable subject. Everyking (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read every single article we have on warhammer 40k - why do you feel this isn't covered in sufficient detail in any of the many many parent articles. Which bits in particular are necessary to provide this comprehensive coverage? please be specific. You talk about the sources being "good" - which one do you think is the best in that article? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major settings in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. This is the appropriate sort of combination article, to avoid articles on every planet--that might qualify as inappriate detail, but not this. . Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't even appear to have personally established whether the game is notable enough (per your "assumption"), which basically means you're defending it for the sake of disrupting AfDs which use WP:FICTION as the primary rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's being disruptive, per se. We may say that his interpretation of what is and is not notable is not in-line with guidelines or even proposed guidelines, but he's free to hold and apply it. On a larger note, I think that notability guidelines for fictional subjects deserve some serious attention--the GNG currently gives us basically an instruction to depopulate fictional categories. I'm not wholly opposed to pushing for a change to WP:N to reflect the sourcing opportunities. but I don't think (even though WP:N is a guideline) it is proper to run the encyclopedia as though a major descriptive guideline was non-existent. Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 20:47, 15 July 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.