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. I was forced to discount almost all "keep" opinions. Mostly, they were appeals to usefulness or interest – or, in the case of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, bland boilerplate that seems to become less meaningful each time I see it at AfD. But with the exception of JoshuaZ, the "keep" proponents did not address the policy-based issues raised here: Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is interesting or useful to somebody, and our well-established inclusion criteria require significant coverage by independent reliable sources. This means the article is deleted (an editorial redirect may be created) until it is recreated based on sources such as those cited by JoshuaZ.  Sandstein  19:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khorne[edit]

Khorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the khaos gods that influences some of the in-universe game mechanics included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with his other chaos gods, none of these items have any real world notability, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past. In addition, Khorne is already discussed in sufficient detail in a more suitable umbrella article. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I swear that I read some metal mag in the 80s which devoted some time to exploring the subject, but in general the pantheons of random fantasy universes are sourced entirely to their creators and have no notability outwith getting Bolt Thrower songs named after them. Consolidation to a single article will reduce WP's fancruft burden and act as an incubator if anyone ever does find reliable secondary sources which cover them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bolthammer thing is mentioned in one of the other articles on this subject (I'm struggling to remember which one because many of the warhammer articles repeat the same thing across 10 or 20 articles). --Allemandtando (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Games Workshop or similar along with all the other GW cruft.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make my comment more clear. I stumbled across the horde of Games Workshop stuff on Wikipedia accidentaly recently, not having played Games Workshop in 15 years. On looking at several articles, it rapidly became clear to me that the vast majority of them have no real world significance and no independent sources. Without these, there are no grounds for keeping around 90% of the articles involved, although given their probable popularity as search terms, a redirect might be more useful than a delete.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, nobody is proposing that these not be left as redirects. This is pretty standard for AfDs where the title is a valid reference to a parent subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I personally find having seperate articles is fine, because I hate having to look at somthing that I don't want to, just to find somthing really small on it. -Kibakamaru talk —Preceding comment was added at 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a good article. It gave me the information I was looking for. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia? Why destroy it? 64.131.242.189 (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC) — 64.131.242.189 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep - What's wrong with having fictional content on Wikipedia? We have plenty more, deleting one article isn't going to make a big difference. 66.63.86.156 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 10 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) and What Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to broadly-worded statements of principle, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why don't you do so instead of continuing linking essays, making irrelevant links to broadly-worded statements of principle, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  i c wut u did thar. But what you did there wasn't add reliable third-party sources to this article, or link them here so someone else can do it for you, and that's what needs to be done to save this article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What seems compelling to me is that it's covered both in English and in French publications. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The former is an official artbook, lacking in factual claims of any sort. The latter is a source book for a licensed Warhammer roleplaying game. I could bold "third-party" if it would make it clearer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  and I could bold the fact that those are warhammer books not warhammer 40k which is a different gaming system - so they are useless anyway. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevertheles, the titular nature ([1], [2], etc. of the term suggest that outright deletion would not bethe way to go. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Still asleep at the wheel I see, those are from the publisher. I'm not going to waste any more time on your disruptive behaviour and I look forward to the upcoming RFC on your recent conduct. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It is my hope, User:Killerofcruft, that you will not waste time with any more disruptive nominations and if you really want to spend time on something I will never read or abide by, then it's just less time spent trying to delete other people's work. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 09:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Artbook, object. People are demanding references to write this article, and it's not an unreasonable demand. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  If you were actually paying attention to other editors' rationales instead of trying to annoy them by repeating their words back to them and copy-pasting replies across multiple AfDs, you'd have noticed that when a book is labelled as "official" this generally implies affiliation with the primary source, i.e. a lack of independence. You would also find that GW's assertion of their trademark rights means that absolutely every source of this type (books about the universe itself) is official. So non of them can be used to establish notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, the WH editors snuck in a fan wiki, then all ran off to a fan wiki. What's left hasn't seen a lot of scrutiny, and is largely unrecoverable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Are there any independent sources for the Hobbit entry? Delete that? No. This is still an important entry that needs to stay. If it is to be deleted, then there are a lot more that need to be deleted as well that I think also add value to WP. 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RenegadeMinds (talk • contribs)

There are currently 6 independent reliable sources in the hobbit article. Are you really claiming that it would be difficult to find 100s of others to go in that article? really? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A few weeks ago, I looked up Warhammer 40K on wikipedia after stumbling across various references to it elsewhere over time. I spent several pleasurable and informative hours reading through the various Wikipedia entries on the topic, learning quite a bit about the subject. A few days ago, google directed me back to the Khorne page when I searched for a specific phrase ("Blood for the blood god") that I've been seeing around. I was shocked to discover someone had blanked and redirected the page to the main 40K article. This makes no sense to me. By all rights, long articles like the main one should be broken down into smaller, more specific and in depth articles. Instead, here, someone is advocating doing the exact opposite - deleting information and cramming whatever is left into what's already a long article. Is this the future of Wikipedia? Less information in fewer, harder to read entries? If so, this will kill a lot of the value and usefulness of this website. I'm not a registered editor, just one of the millions of random people who use Wikipedia as a first line reference and a learning tool. I'm your target audience. I hope my vote counts for something. 24.42.68.128 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) — 24.42.68.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - This is completely unnecessary without coverage in third party reliable sources. TTN (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No citations to indicate significant coverage by multiple third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and probably combine with other similar ones to make a combination article. The assertion in the nomination that this content is unsuitable even as a combination article shows the determination to remove content which is certainly relevant to the subject.DGG (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Yet you, like Le Grand Roi, assert notability with absolutely no evidence of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and combine. It's fluff but it's useful to many people, and interesting to many others. Just because a few don't like/understand it doesn't mean it should be deleted. Besides, it IS linked to something in the real world anyway; a game. Therefore, following the course of logic presented, shouldn't the entires surrounding the universes of MGS, Metroid Prime, Halo, and many other lengthy fictional universes be up for deletion or stripping to their bare bones as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.232.197 (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, yes they should. --Allemandtando (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—The article has no reliable secondary sources to assert notability. I have not been able to find such independent sources. Thus, I must conclude that this article does not satisfy the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. Many of the keep statements are assertions of usefulness, but do nothing to address the concerns of the nominator and are not grounded in Wikipedia policy. Pagrashtak 03:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable verifiable ]sources independent of the topic. The entire article is a rehashing of in-universe details and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Major figures in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. Conceivably merge to a list of characters without loss of content. 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) 07:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are in fact many reliable sources that discuss this character. See for example [3]. There's also an article about Khorne in some detail from the September-October 20006 Computer Games Magazine which is unfortunately not online. If I'm not mistaken all the chaos gods including Khorne are discussed in the book "Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them" by David Anderegg which is a real, honest-to-goodness independent dead-tree sources. There are apparently other non-online sources as well. The sources exist which are enough to justify keeping. That said, I don't see any serious problem with merging this to some larger article about all the chaos gods. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

which can be found at Chaos_(Warhammer) --Allemandtando (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, we would merge and redirect without deleting. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 13 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.