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. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000[edit]

Vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a very detailed list of more than couple dozen fictional items of military equipment used by a fictional faction in a fictional universe (IMHO this article is a simple Wikipedia:Fancruft case). However Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia and not a detailed games sourcebook (WP:NOTMANUAL). The subject's inherent notability is frankly extremely doubtful (IMHO it fails Wikipedia:Notability - please read the General notability guidelines carefully). IMHO the sources and references reflect this; they don't come from independent third parties but rather from sourcebooks themselves or from sites of the respective computer games. Please read the article carefully and then truly ask yourselves: is this a proper article for Wikipedia? Afterwards feel free to vote according to your conscience. I also wish to point out the similar deletion proposals in Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 and Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All We may not like it but the consensus of the Wikipedia community has been that WP is a place for lists of trivia, and Warhammer is less trivial than most others.Borock (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Warhammer 40K is a very popular tabletop game among gamers. This entry written well and with some work could be a good article. (Changed recommendation I was unaware of another article with a similar title already existing). No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This article is well done and should be merged into the main article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a RPG game guide. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if these are deleted, then Equipment and vehicles of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000 should also be deleted. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there might be more trivial lists that violate policy but a bad list is a bad list. Wikipedia is not a WP:GAMEGUIDE. And the vehicles do not meet the general notability guideline that calls for third-party sources. Precedent for deleting these kinds of lists can be seen at Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000, Vehicles of the Imperial Guard in Warhammer 40,000 and Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what is this GAMEGUIDE OF which deletors speak?

"Video game guides. An article about a computer game or video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE."

And if you want precedent, boy, there is plenty of that.

Deleted without discussion:

The Battle for Macragge

Ogryn

Holy_Terra_(world)

Redirected without discussion:

Primarch 17:58, 13 August 2008 by Pagrashtak (talk · contribs)

Eldar Harlequins 20:05, 10 September 2010 by Thumperward (talk · contribs) (also mass deletion of content from pages such as this, per a 'discussion' between himself and someone who objected to his changes)

Slaanesh 15:32, 22 July 2008 Jaysweet (talk · contribs)

Laughing God 05:06, 26 July 2008 Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) twice

Articles for Deletion discussions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard Template Construct

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters mass deletion including Black Legion (Warhammer 40,000), Iron Warriors, Night Lords, Thousand Sons

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons, equipment, and vehicles of the Necrons

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planets of Warhammer 40,000

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles of the Space Marines in Warhammer 40,000

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equipment of the Imperium in Warhammer 40,000

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titan (Warhammer 40,000)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land Raider (Warhammer 40,000) (mass delete with Powerfist, Dreadnought (Warhammer 40,000), Terminator (Warhammer 40,000))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) (mass delete with White Scars, Space Wolves, Imperial Fists, Blood Angels, Salamanders (Warhammer 40,000))

Commons files

Commons:Deletion_requests/Warhammer_40,000_derivate_work_and_fan_art Mass deletion: File:40KChainsword 3DModel.jpg, File:Biscopea.png, File:Boltaci.png, File:Bolterlourd.png, File:Bolthell.png, File:Boltinf.png, File:Boltkken.png, File:Boltsil.png, File:Boltstd.png, File:Canon Plasma.png, File:Canon dassaut.png, File:Cataciani.jpg, File:Coeur Auxiliaire.png, File:Fulgurant.png, File:Fusil sniper.png, File:Fusilpompe.png, File:Gaunt di Tanith.jpg, File:Guerrier du Chaos Khorne.JPG, File:Lance Flamme.png, File:Lanceplasma.png, File:Munitions plasma.png, File:Ossmodula.png, File:Paquetage(W40K).png, File:Pistolet plasma.png, File:Pistoletbolter.png, File:Silver guard standar.jpg, File:Soldato di Tanith.jpg, File:Spettri di Gaunt.jpg, File:Tau and Imperial Guard.jpg, File:W40k.JPG, File:Warhammer 40k Battle 14.jpg, File:Warhammer 40k Battle 4.jpg, File:Worldeaterslogo.gif, File:YoungEisenhorn.jpg, File:Épée tronçonneuse.jpg, File:Épée énergétique copie.jpg, File:W40000 Symbol.png, File:Khorne11.JPG, File:Khorne112.JPG

I don't see that list as a precedent to delete, though. I see it as one of the things that is wrong with Wikipedia. I see it as Khanaris does, below, in his last two sentences (you can have his diplomacy in the rest of the paragraph too, but I don't know if he still means it; he has not edited since April 2010):

"Essentially, what is happening here is that one or two editors have decided to undertake a comprehensive sweep of the dozens of pages dedicated to the fictional elements of Warhammer 40k. I am seeing the same two or three names pop up in every one of these AfD. This is different than someone with a grudge going in and deleting pages dedicated to a hobby or setting they don't like, which is what has been implied. However, I think it is better to do all of this at the same time. Wikipedia would be better off if a standard policy regarding fictional notability was adopted, since then there wouldn't be such a warren of lost links and disorganized pages. Deleting them piece-meal like this is not really a good answer. The policy should be set first, and then applied evenly across the entire range of content. Furthermore, the same policies that apply here should be extended to Warhammer Fantasy as well. They should also extend to every other fictional game setting. Dungeons and Dragons has this problem with most of its pages. Warmachine has it with all of its pages. Third Party sources do not exist to provide notability because the companies involved would consider such sources to be in violation of their IP. Unless the content has existed for long enough to draw academic interest, it can not generate third party sources. This does not accurately cover how noteworthy the information might be, since the strict interpretation of IP rules is an artificial constraint on coverage. I think the notability requirements in this case need to account for the scope of the non-third-party material. There is a big difference in notability between someone that has been mentioned once in a single book and something that has become an icon within a specific community due to use by numerous authors in numerous publications under the same umbrella IP constraints. As it is now, there are hundreds of settings where this problem exists. Books, games, and movies. Almost every comic book younger than 30 years. All but a handful of Star Wars and Star Trek pages. Every medium where fiction can be presented. From the fact these thousands of pages exist here, many of them well-researched and well-written, it can be gathered that this is something people are interested in preserving in an encyclopedic format. You can push all of these topics off to for-profit sites like Wikia, but I am not sure that is really honoring what Wikipedia is supposed to be." - User talk:Khanaris, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)

I am pretty sure this is the tip of the iceberg. Fans contributed everything about Warhammer and Warhammer 40K, and everything has been deleted. 'Fans' has been made a dirty word. And yet the same people who delete these things also happily improve the 45(!) articles from 1959 Scotch Cup (the first World Curling Championship) etc etc all the way up to 2011 Ford World Men's Curling Championship and do not appear to experience cognitive dissonance while doing so. I have never and will never begrudge Curling enthusiasts their article, but there is a limit to what can be considered a good faith mistake of perspective, and at least one of them has crossed that line. There is a double standard in operation at Wikipedia; editors who are the losing end know it, and editors who are on the winning side will be coming for the articles you cherish next, as sports enthusiasts are already starting to realize. Anarchangel (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I would say transwiki to annex but whenever I say that, people ignore me, so I don't do it anymore. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep this is a nomination that has lost perspective in response to the other indescriminate related articles in the area. Even though it may take original research the equipment and vehicles have had a profound impact on the weaponary, costume and vehicles in sci-fi films and series. The article is sourced from white dwarf magazine at a time when it was a proper magazine covering many games that were not owned by Games Workshop. Vehicles was a separate Warhammer game book [1]. There are still spin off products ie computer games[2] and DVD [3]. The article might need polishing or even renaming as (vehicles and weaponary of Warhammer 40k) but as someone who isn't a fan of RPG the equipment and vehicles is encyclopedic and warrants a separate article. Tetron76 (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We are all free to have our own opinions, so it goes: This article is simply not meant for Wikipedia at all. It is a detailed presentation of several dozen fictional vehicles. All its sources come directly or indirectly from Games Workshop: they are either 40K armybooks, White Dwarf (magazine) or video games based on the setting. None of those are independent third-party sources (as in Wikipedia:Third-party sources). IMHO this article is simply way too specialized: it's clearly written by fans and meant largely for fans (as in Wikipedia:Fancruft). If Wikipedia has such an article about the vehicles of the Imperium, why shouldn't it have similar specialized articles for the vehicles of the Tau (Warhammer 40,000), Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), Dark Eldar, Ork (Warhammer 40,000) etc? I mean come on, such an article is good and fine for Fan wikis like Lexicanum or the Warhammer 40,000 Wiki but IMHO it isn't meant for an encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. Here we have article about the fantasy/science-fiction setting (Warhammer 40,000) and for its major fictional factions (listed above). IMHO we shouldn't have articles about fictional vehicles belonging to a fictional faction in a fictional universe. Flamarande (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am reducing my vote from strong to keep because of the name of the article issue. But this is a list and if you compare it to other wikilists it is not unreasonable. The Mirror does mention vehicles in passing [4], the game went #2 in the years sales[5], with several reviews such as [6], books have made top 20 [7]. Brian Blessed has his voice for WH40k noted in an article about him [8][9]. There is a general two page article on warhammer [10]. This is just a snap shot of mainstream newspaper articles mentioning Warhammer 40k, there are computer game review sites that are used for other articles. My point is that although, the game vehicles don't get explicit mentions in the media is that Warhammer 40k is very significant and the weapons and vehicles are significant for their impact on other areas more so than characters or other articles and a list seems appropriate as they don't have individual notability.Tetron76 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meant notability to pass GNG, While I might be more leaning towards Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise/A.4#Proposal_A.4:_Lists_may_be_exempted_from_the_GNG if you read carefully there is no policy that explicitly excludes this list. White Dwarf was stocked by WHSmiths briefly around this time because I had a friend who took it which would make it mainstream.Tetron76 (talk) 21:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The vast majority of entirely unsourced trivia on Warhammer 40,000 was migrated off the project (along with the editors who enthusiastically added to it) at the end of 2007: discussion took place on the Warhammer 40,000 WikiProject's talk page, cultinating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/Archive 6#Falcorian's First Five-Year Plan. The simple fact is that almost none of the huge amount of material added to Wikipedia concerning Warhammer 40,000 has any references whatsoever other than those derived from the game books and surrounding source material in which the subjects feature. That sort of thing is fine for a specialist wiki like Lexicanium, but it has no place here as our inclusion criterion is not verifiability but notability in the sense of recognition and analysis by independent secondary sources. This is no exception. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:37, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just as soon you felt better with your little pipedream, but I would give the others here a chance to make up their mind with all the facts. Every single fantasy and science fiction game, book, comic, movie, television program or anime show is more likely to be deleted than its counterparts in other areas. I could have rustled up three good sources for this in five minutes and been on my way, if it were not the penultimate victim of a cultural icon that is only one victim of a grand genrecide. Anarchangel (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the above is a 'delete' vote. Flamarande (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't vote here. It is what it is. The closing admin should be able to figure the sentiment out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Gameguide material, written in an in-universe style, no third party coverage = non-notable topic.  Sandstein  05:49, 14 April 2011 (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.