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. The "keep" opinions do not address the issues raised relating to the lack of non-primary sources about this topic. I'm in principle amenable to close AfDs as "protected redirect" if there is any worthwhile (i.e. well-written, reliably inline-sourced) content, which does not seem to be the case here. An editorial redirect may be created.  Sandstein  16:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malal[edit]

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

This nomination was inspired by the recent discussion, WP:Articles for deletion/Khorne, as it was on a similar topic in the same universe. It has issues with WP:FICT, WP:RS and WP:OR, but essentially its biggest problem is non-notability: this is not a notable fictional entity even within the fantasy setting, let alone beyond it. The article itself makes clear that the only mentions of 'Malal' since its first creation have been scattered and trivial. I believe finding any kind of sources for this article that would indicate real-world notability to be impossible, therefore it should be deleted.

At the risk of violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: if Khorne was rightly deleted, this one, which is about one-tenth as notable, most definitely should go the same way. Wikipedia is not a fansite, but an encyclopaedia. (It was in fact turned into a redirect two days ago by User:Jaysweet, only to be reverted by User:KiTA one day later.) Terraxos (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with a vengeance It is frankly laughable that people think this should be an encyclopedia article. It is a specific character of a specific faction of a specific expansion set for a fairly notable wargame franchise. There is zero external coverage; the only sources are primary sources. Le Grand Roi de Citroulles (apologizes if I botched the spelling, Roi) has recently convinced me that a redirect is a better solution for stuff like this, especially since there is a strong case to be made to transwiki it to the WH40K wikia, and also if any content were to be merged into another article then the revision history should be preserved for GFDL reasons. However, I have found that putting a merge tag at the top of articles results in zero discussion, and it is apparent that the cruftlovers are going to revert any unilateral redirect. Based on this, it appears to me that the only workable process we have in place for exposing the strong community consensus against including this kind of material is AfD. So be it. Delete, delete, delete, and don't you dare come whining to me that the article history should have been left in place to enabling attribution and transwiki. Ain't my fault. Okay, well, maybe my fervor is not productive. In any case, there are zero independent reliable sources. No notability outside of the game, and questionable relevance even to gameplay. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heh, I agree with what Jay said completely (and then crossed out). You should restore that - you make excellent points. Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I felt my tone was unhelpful, especially considering that -- let's face it -- any deletion discussion on a several K article that is not a blatant copyvio means we are talking about discarding hours of someone's work. With that in mind, I thought my aggressive tone was a bit insensitive.

Reading it back, there is one thing from the struck comments I would like to reaffirm, though in a milder tone: Le Grand Roi recently convinced me that for an article where some of the content may be merged into another article, it is better for GFDL purposes (if not explicitly required) that the page be changed to a redirect rather than deleted, in order to preserve authorship. However, there is no binding "Articles for Redirect" process (and in fact, one time I nommed an article with the intention of making it a redirect and got yelled at by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) for misusing AfD), and there are a large number of users who understand how to use the undo button, but don't understand WP:NOTE or the AfD process. These conditions create an incentive to use AfD even when deletion is not the optimal solution.

Once, I warned a defender of a problematic article that if we could not find a compromise, the article would go to AfD and that my experience told me the community consensus would be to delete -- and he accused me of threatening him and of WP:CANVASsing! I tried for quite some time to explain to him that I was not trying to threaten him, I was just telling him the reality. I assured him that even if I keeled over at that very moment from a massive heart attack, eventually someone else would come along and the article would get deleted. But he still maintained it was a threat.

Unfortunately, I have found the only practical way to inject a dose of reality into a discussion over notability is to use AfD. It is the only thing that 1) is nearly guaranteed to get additional community involvement, and 2) ensures a binding enforcement method to uphold the achieved consensus.

What we really need is for AfD to also allow "redirect and protect" noms, i.e. essentially a deletion that preserves publicly viewable revision history. Frankly, though, I don't believe Wikipedia is structurally capable of significant policy change anymore, so that's why I'm complaining about it here instead of at the Village Pump :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while I don't quite share the fervor of my fellow editor above, the article cites no sources independent from the game manufacturer (This gets old but The codexes, White Dwarf magazine, Fanatic magazine (this specific one), and the fiction are all published by Games workshop) to establish notability per the WP:GNG. The article covers the fictional god of a faction in a miniatures game and falls squarely into the "backstory" category. Knowledge of the crowded pantheon of gods is not required to play 40K, EPIC or Dawn of War--even within the fictional universe of 40K, the significance of this subject is marginal. Outside the magic circle, significance is nil. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge. This is a worthwhile article that focuses on "lost lore" from GW that has since been removed. I have intended to go back and re-add the missing references in such a way that the delete-bots and the people incorrectly citing policy would stop nuking them, Just have not had the time to do so. If it is deleted, I feel most of the information should be merged into the Warhammer/Warhammer40k Chaos articles, at the very least. KiTA (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This character appears only in the roleplaying game based on the background of a fantasy-themed tabletop wargame. The likelihood that sources exist outside of Games Workshop (or whatever company they've licensed their RPG to lately) is essentially nil. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge this article contains decent information on an important, if moderately obscure character, even if it was dropped for legal reasons later --UltraMagnus (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  this article contains decent information on an important[...] character^{[citation needed]} - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I take it that was some sort of in joke? because it wasn't very funny —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMagnus (talk • contribs) 08:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You say it's important. That's all well and good, but source please? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It is a very long article, and if I see a long article, I say it's notable.Kitty53 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In short, length means squat in terms of notability. This isn't even really long in the first place. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to your keep vote for the very long article I intend to write about my pet dog Juniper. --Jaysweet (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable spinout article per WP:FICT. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kitty53 Oh Bishoff, Won't you? (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Oh Bishoff, Won't you? (talk · contribs) appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked MurrayBishoff (talk · contribs). I am reporting now. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:44, 28 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.