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 17:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomican[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. Written in a completely "in universe" style and contains content that is not even relevant to the game as it is played. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Wholly in-universe repetition of plot information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primarily plot repetition and not even significant within the gameplay. You could play 40k for a dozen years and never know about this topic. Not covered in reliable sources independent from the game manufacturers. Protonk (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:41, 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! 01:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:PERNOM. Thanks and --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From WP:PERNOM: "If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom.""
    - My concern stems from this, i.e.
      - 05:20, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schola Progenium ‎
      - 05:20, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages of the Imperium ‎
      - 05:20, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Lords of Terra ‎
      - 05:20, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daemonhunters ‎
      - 05:19, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astronomican ‎
      - 05:19, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Arbites ‎
      - 05:19, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Custodes ‎
      - 05:18, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Strife ‎
      - 05:17, 20 August 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien Hunters (Warhammer 40,000) ‎
    - Three "per noms" in under a minute at 05:19 and FOUR "per noms" in under a minute at 05:20. Can you read four articles, check for sources, and read all the posts in four AfDs in under a minute? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's a fair comment. I'd not looked at the user's other contributions. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right, Le Grand, what you describe is not possible. However, it is possible to read four articles, check for sources, and read all the posts in four AFDs in 15 hours, then reply to all four in under a minute. You should have brought this up on the editor's talk page first to determine what happened. Pagra shtak 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Possible, perhaps, but unlikely as from experience it's usually the per noms that never return to discussions to take into account whether or not the article has improved, sources have been added, etc. Assuming good faith does not stretch to the point of being naive. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 22 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.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        Hey, I'm just sayin'... - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As others have pointed out, the odds of this (or any of the AfD's I posted to recently, not all of which were Warhammer related) being sourced properly or legitimately are slim. I've been following the discussions, and cast my votes *when I was ready*. I found the nomination language to be concise and a factual description of the problem, thus, no further comment was needed other than a "support" comment, and as someone pointed out, my comments are actually *allowed* under the WP:PERNOM page that Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles pointed to - there was no need for him to try and diminish my comment by adding "Please see WP:PERNOM" to almost every page I commented on. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        "Try and is nonstandard for try to. I will try to (not try and) be better about writing to you." -Diana Hacker, A Pocket Manual of Style, 39. "Takes the infinitive: 'try to mend it,' not 'try and mend it.'...try to is precise, and when you are writing formal prose...write try to." -William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White, The Elements of Style, Fourth Edition (New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2000), 62. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The big difference is I also make additional comments throughout the discussions and usually do something to the articles as well. Plus, you can do the same thing with practically all of the deletes here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no adequate assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. As it stands, article is entirely plot summary and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "The Astronomicon is a psychic beacon that directs travel through the daemon-filled 'Warp', allowing faster-than-light travel." Put this in the WH40K article or the Imperium article or wherever and delete this. No GFDL concern because, well, I skimmed this and learned nothing, and there's no sourced info to merge anyway. The hope of sourced info for this is vanishingly slim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable cruft with no independent sources --T-rex 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT are both invalid reasons for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No independent sources is, however, a perfectly valid one. Are you being willfully myopic? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not persuaded that no sources exist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So you disagree, which has nothing to do with WP:ATA. Don't misuse WP:ATA. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No one is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirectas the practical solution for all of them. Preserve the history, in case anyone does actually find sources. Experience shows that doing so for these articles is possible, but slow and difficult, and so far few people here have the determination and patience. DGG (talk) 16:51, 24 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.