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) 11:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marneus Calgar

[edit]

Article about a character in the Warhammer 40,000 game. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 08:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong 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! 16:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources --T-rex 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - By writing independent sources? None exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Enough sources exist for a spinoff or sub-article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, another "so fix it" without any offering of third-party sources with which to do it. Great. --EEMIV (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, another response that does not provide any compelling reason why we should delete. Great. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have already provided a compelling reason why we should delete: Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. The way to fix an unsourced article for which 3rd party sources is to add them to the article. The way to fix an unsourced article for which 3rd party sources don't exist is to delete the article. This whole thread is a community effort to Fix It.210.160.15.16 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The way to fix it is to source it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insignificant coverage from independent sources which are neither in-universe nor game guides. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage is significant enough for an article on a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks references to secondary, third-party sources reflecting the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There does seem to be discussion of this character by independent people. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blog posts are not reliable sources. Plenty of people I have in my phone book know who Marneus Calgar is, but this isn't evidence of notability either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You know, while I still believe this subject is sufficiently notable for a paperless encyclopedia and I do think notability is inherited, I nevertheless acknowledge that I am not finding the sources I have come across for some of these other Warhammer subjects. As such, I think I'll sit this one out and hope that those who created and worked on the article can find better sources than I. Put simply, the large number of regular Google hits sufficiently persuade me that the topic is not a hoax and has potential notability, but I am admittedly not finding much on Google news or Google books and usually I can at least find something on either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exceedingly minor character in a non-character driven game. Unless you deploy an Ultramarine army in a game with rules lawyers (see the trivia section), he isn't all that important. Not covered in sources independent from the game manufacturer, therefore this article doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Also, if the closing admin chooses to not apply the GNG, this character would not merit inclusion on the basis of inherited notability or navigational value, unlike Ibram Gaunt, which is much closer to borderline inclusion. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this character is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This character is more notable than most, and as far as I'm aware, there are no areas which aren't described as factual. Also, why delete all these articles? If I'm right, over the past two months, you've left barely anything about 40k. You might as well delete the whole damn section. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable outside the W40K universe. Subject is more suitable to a specialist wiki. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion and per our first pillar, we are a specialized encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See WP:BASH and WP:NOTPOLICY for why I would not tend to agree with that. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - this and all other warhammer characters. While there are some warhammer components that are independently notable the individual characters are not. --T-rex 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  ...says that !voting to delete because other similar articles have been deleted and !voting to keep because you would otherwise have to delete other similar articles, neither of which T-rex was trying to do. If there's one thing worse than arguing with everyone who !votes here, it's arguing using an argument that doesn't make sense. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm interested to know what portion of the criteria for deletion the nominating editor believes that this article meets. The reliable sources guideline is just that, a guideline on the best way to source an article. As far as I can tell this article meets the three needed criteria for an article in that is is not original research, it is verifiable accurate and is written from neutral point of view. If the subject material is not deemed notable enough by editors to have its own article then interested parties should be given the time to Merge the article with a parent characters "list" article. TomPointTwo (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent references to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:25, 26 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.