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.
Delete. No sources other than GW publications have yet been unearthed to cover even the broad, important topics, let alone a fictional institution conceived in order to give in-setting justification for one single pewter figure. That Wikipedia is a specialized encyclopedia does not mean its mandate includes covering fictional settings in greater detail than even enthusiasts of the game would need for understanding. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the contents of the article are not notable enough to warrant inclusion in our encyclopedia then keeping the history is a waste of resources and a potential source of edit warring. Given your success rate in AfDs of this type, your assertions of what is and is not "clear" do not match those of the rest of the project. WP:NOT#GOOGLE, and if a search term doesn't return a result it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk01:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My success rate is just fine when we remove all the Frederick day sockpuppetry, biased closes, etc. The contents are worthy enough to be included in some capacity. A handful of deletes in some snapshot in time AfD does not reflect the much broader consensus of thousdands of editors and readers who worked on and are interested in these articles. We could always have protected redirects. There is no need to also delete the edit history unless it is libelous or something, because it isn't really deleted as admins can are somehow able to restore deleted contribs and so it doesn't make a difference on performance. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!01:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your "biased closes" conspiracy theory was overwhelmingly swept aside the other day, and I'd have nominated every Fredrick Day 40K AfD myself had it not already happened (and gotten the same result). You can play by your own rules all you want; all that we ask is that closing admins weight your comments according to the community's standards and not your own, and this has been overwhelmingly successful in the 40K domain thus far. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Swept aside" by the expected bias, dishonesty, and hypocrisy, which served the effective purpose of exposing which editors aren't actually approaching AfDs with an open-mind or good faith, i.e. it let me know who is and is not actually a serious and reasonable editor in these discussions. I play by the rules of what the community actually wants. When I see articles that scores of editors work on and thousands visit monthly, there is no way I am going to be convinced that a handful of the same editors in these AfDs somehow actually reflects what the community wants, because the idea that a handful of the same copy and paste deletes that have no desire to work on the articles in question somehow actually reflects consensus for articles that may have been worked on since even 2004 and that may get over 6,000 hits a month is anti-logical. Some have a needlessly narrow-minded view of what we should cover that is totally at odds with the majority of our community. All those AfDs, which yes, tended to be closed by admins of the deletionist leaning and were indeed marred by sock nominations, reflects what those same handful of editors want in total opposition to the far more overwhelming reality of what others actually come here to read and write. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!01:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, unlikely (As with the overwhelming majority of the warhammer 40k sub topics) to have sources which are reliable and independent. Not plot recapitulation per se but not notable per the WP:GNG. Even if we were to enact a guideline similar to WP:FICT where some daughter elements of fiction were considered notable this would still not be. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that not every comment/vote needs a rebuttal from you. 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. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those who create, work on, read, and argue to keep these articles obviously feel differently and I am far more interested in siding with what the majority use Wikipedia for so long as it isn't nonsense, because these editors help build our project and even become donors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My position is in support of what the community of article creators, contributors, and readers actually want or how they interpret policies and guidelines. This notion that a handful of deletes somehow better reflects what the community wants than scores of article contributors and thousands of readers seem anti-logical. But even that aside, in my opinion the article is consistent with what Wikipedia is, i.e. a comprehensive paperless reference guide. The information is not from some game I made up and a few buddies play, but rather something a sizable group of people are familiar with. I am not convinced that as it is clear people do come here for this term, we would not at least redirect it to a section of an article that mentions it and we can do that without deleting the edit history as I did not notice anything particularly disturbing in the edit history that must be deleted right now. I am simply not seeing a pressing need to redlink it now. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!01:31, 22 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.