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. Regarding whether a redirect should be created that points to hyperspace (science fiction), there doesn't appear to be a consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Immaterium[edit]

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such it is simply plot repetition done in an in-universe way culled from the other Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete - no real-world context, no reliable sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 16:18, 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. Over 3,000 page views a month and work since 2004 show that regardless of two delete votes in a snapshot in time five day AfD, the actual community consensus is overwhelmingly to keep. Duplicative material is redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources, and the content has never been anything other than purely in-universe reiteration of game plot. Worst-case scenario, it should be redirected to hyperspace (science fiction), given the similarity between the 40K version and Dune's concept of hyperspace (which is where GW ripped it from). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to hyperspace (science fiction) - I agree with the worst case scenarios presented by both Grand Roi and Chris Cunningham. The sources here are all from Games Workshop (the publishers of Warhammer 40K), so they don't establish notability. Redirecting will save what we've got so far until someone can find a few good references. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I meant "worst case scenario" as in the situation where somehow a consensus is not found to delete. I'd be happiest with a full delete and a posthumous redirect. Experience has shown that redirecting fancruft without the delete only encourages the original article to be reverted back in. There's nothing salvageable in the current article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who notices (or watches the redirect) can just revert it back, and leave a short explanation on the user's talk page. I don't think we should delete hours worth of work just because we're worried someone will make a mistake that can be fixed in under a minute. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the work is unsalvageably in-universe then it has no place here (and has already been transwikied / rewritten in more appropriate places), and keeping its history accessible is pointless no matter how many hours' work went into it. This is not material which is waiting for someone to find references - significant third-party references simply don't exist in substantial numbers to warrant an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know those sources don't exist anywhere? How do you know this is "unsalvageable fancruft"? A quick googling can find a few third party sources that briefly mention the real-world relevance of the subject, and while that's not enough to keep the article, I think it's a stretch to say we need an administrator to destroy the page history. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your "quick Googling" finds mainly mirrors of the Wikipedia article, other wikis (the -wiki parameter you used in your search didn't seem to do much!) or references to a band named Immaterium. The first five or six pages of that search contained no reliable sources, and no items that even touched on real-world relevance. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 15:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I provided a real source too. A Google search on its own proves nothing, regardless of how well (or poorly) I do it. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's an excellent source on some warhammer fiction topics in general, can you post that on the project talk page (would be helpful for some marginal articles and to provide real world context), but I can't agree that the article you linked could be considered a significant mention of the topic in question (I'm not suggesting that you were misrepresenting it). Protonk (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to hyperspace and list as a fictional example or naming of it. It straddles the line for plot repetition since it isn't a recapitulation of the story but it is wholly related to 40K backstory (and not related to the notable miniature or computer games in any meaningful sense). So there may be some real give and take as to whether or not it meets WP:NOT, but it clearly (just like the other 40K stuff) doesn't meet the WP:GNG. These articles give us a good reason to get back to writing a real, working fiction daughter guideline for notability, otherwise these AfD's will continue to be proxy battles over the communities view about inherited notability. However, in the absence of community consensus regarding that daughter guideline, I think that WP:N can be applied here to delete or redirect this article Protonk (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:59, 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) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In-universe detail and plot summary without real-world content. Notability has not been established via substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has been established by any reasonable standard. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How so? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - So long as it is verifiable in published sources and we know from doing a Google search that it is part of a mainstream franchise (i.e. not something I just made up and list on one website) then I believe it appropriate for Wikipedia or in the case of below at least a soft-redirect to the transwikied article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've seen this case for external soft redirects before, and I'd be hesitant to support enacting this practice here and now without a more centralized discussion. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:07, 20 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.