Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abhuman


 * 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   Keep (non-admin closure), Bold NAC. This is a completely different article than what we started with. While I strongly and strenuously disagree with the practice of remaking the subject of an article during an AfD, the process of deletion isn't punitive and isn't hidebound. The new article is wholly different and any deletion discussions of it are not germane to this (and vice versa). Protonk (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Abhuman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply an in-universe repetition of plot and setting information culled from various other Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is thus duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

See also:
 * Articles for deletion/Schola Progenium
 * Articles for deletion/High Lords of Terra
 * Articles for deletion/Age of Strife
 * Articles for deletion/Adeptus Custodes
 * Articles for deletion/Immaterium


 * Delete for failing WP:RS. I wish we could just cull all the fluff and have some 40K articles that are relevant to the GAME and not the STORY! --  JediLofty UserTalk 16:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  16:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per 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. Duplicative content is redirected without deletion in the worst case scenario.  Also, the concept of an "abhuman" extends beyond Warhammer and is a major element of a variety of works of fiction and is indeed discussed in an out of universe context in reliable secondary sources as seen in these books.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of a word is not the same as a discussion of the concept.  Corvus cornix  talk  21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is when discussed in multiple secondary sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where are the multiple secondary sources talking about the subject of this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In the results linked to above. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't see that any of those results referred to "Abhuman" as described in the article - they were all generic uses of the word, rather than the Games Workshop race. -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per agreement with the nominator, who has withdrawn the nomination, and EEMIV below, the consensus seems to be to write a new article instead on the use in Gothic fiction rather than Warhammer. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A peripheral edge of a sprawling setting full of random one-off ideas. Nobody has seen fit to comment on this subject (as opposed to using this title to refer to unrelated things) in reliable sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 22:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As linked to above, the topic appears in dozens of reliable sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link me (or cite for me) one single reliable source that speaks to mutated humans in the Warhammer 40K setting? All I saw there was just a bunch of times this word appears in other contexts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am arguing for revising the article to cover the topic as a whole, i.e. not limiting it to just Warhammer. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then write that article. This is an unrelated subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not help? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think they constitute a coherent topic. If you do, by all means, find some sources and write an article. In the meantime, we'll clear this bit of unreferenceably excessive fancruft out of the way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. I have provided a link to sources above that we should be working together to use to source this article.  We're here to catalog human knowledge and build an encyclopedia, not indiscriminately diminish the encyclopedia by decataloging human knowledge.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If your ability to read and comprehend is so limited that you cannot read the adjectives before a noun, we are incapable of further discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see this as comprehensive, not excessive. It's hard to say that paperless encyclopedia can have excessive coverage in spinout and subarticles.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That you disagree with my argument is not license to misrepresent it. Do not be dishonest. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish others would be more honest in these discussions (part of why I am willing to go back and forth with people). -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. The argument that the appearance of the term "abhuman" in different contexts is a reason to keep this article is entirely bogus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article itself notes that the term is used elsewhere and we should expand the article to cover its larger significance. Arguing that it is not sufficiently notable given the overabundance of third-party sources for the larger use of the term is dishonest.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability through significant coverage in independent sources. Article is nothing more than pure plot summary, and fails WP:NOT. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article cites no (and like the other articles based on GW's intellectual property) is likely to cite no independent, reliable sources to assert notablity per the WP:GNG. I disagree that it is plot summary, as it makes noises toward being an element of a fictional bestiary, but I can see where legitimate disagreement would occur there.  Delete. Protonk (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - lack of citations to third-party sources to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break
While I am not going to argue one way or the other here about its notability in Warhammer, it is most definitely a serious and legitimate topic covered in scholarly sources about an aspect of modernist British gothic literature. Anyway, I believe that this is the approach to take here. So, if there is a consensus against the Warhammer stuff, I doubt anyone could reasonably argue against the subject as it relates to Gothic literature, so let us not be stopped by the AfD from beginning work on the article on Gothic literature in the Abhuman space and if there is consensus for the Warhammer content, that can always be moved to a new article called Abhuman (Warhammer), but clearly the use in Gothic literature is the one that gets the most reliable secondary source coverage and should be what is the focus of Abhuman. I have started working on that content, but would appreciate help and hopefully we can succeed as we did with Arathi and Commander Dante. -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You've been warned, repeatedly, about derailing AFDs about unrelated subjects.


 * Write an unrelated article if you care to, and do not mention it in this AFD again. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Le Grand, between the recent conversation at AN/I (I don't have a link, but you probably know the one I'm talking about) and the DRVs for Sonic Shower and Commander Dante, it seems clear to me, and I hope to you, that the best course of action would be to let this AfD on this Warhammer content run its course, while you in parallel create in your user space an Abhuman article with whatever substantiation for notability and references you can dig up, and/or develop something new atop what I'm sure will be the redlink that this AfD yields. --EEMIV (talk) 03:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * EEMIV, if I am not going to convince anyone on the Warhammer stuff, then please let's just go ahead and write the new article over that one to save both time and energy. I am saying that I am willing to refrain from arguing further vigorously about this and maybe even other Warhammer articles if when it does turn out as was the case with Arathi and Commander Dante as well that an unquestionably notable topic does exist that we save ourselves the usual back and forth discussions and just go ahead and write the clearly encyclopedic articles.  Here is a big opportunity for us all to compromise and maybe even rebuild any spirit of collegiality.  I am making this offer in good faith in the hopes of preventing further inclusionist versus deletionist disputes in some of these fiction article discussions.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. Great. So. Let the AfD finish up and in your own time fire up something more appropriate to take its place. You did a good job with Commander Dante; I'm sure you (or someone else with an interest) can similarly do something with this gothic lit. topic. Making substantial changes to the content of an article during AfD is fine; you've saved several articles that way. But wholly shifting the topic -- particularly when WP:GNG is a major issue -- just muddles the process. So, again, I think the wiser course of action that leads to the least angst is to let this AfD on this topic run its course. When that's done, either fire up a same-name/different-topic article on the redlink or, if this thing survives AfD, incorporate this other facet or move the current content or whatever. All that said, I might be more receptive to a total re-write/change of topic if there were actually something sitting somewhere -- i.e. something developed in user space -- to look at, rather than a what-if. And even then, if someone's going to fire up a draft/proposal of what this new article might look like, again it might just be better to let the AfD run its course and move the material from user space to article space if the AfD ends with deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See here for what I was in the process of doing. I would not be opposed if you wanted to take what I started doing and keep that while totally removing the Warhammer stuff so that we can instead further build the Gothic novel material a la what I ultimately did with Commander Dante.  I started adding the new content and there are a host of other scholarly articles and published books that discuss the topic at greater length.  I think we can take the article on the Gothic novel material and divide it into sections on the concept's origins and use in specific works of fiction as discussed in the published books and journal articles.  All I am saying is that instead of waiting a few days for a consensus above that is not really likely to change from what we have, we should just forge ahead and do what we did with Arathi.  We should take that as a successful example of what we can accomplish in these scenarios.  Otherwise, I am going to feel compelled to keep arguing for the Warhammer notability so that the article isn't redlinked and probably just continue to not feel as positively about some when here we have a chance to stop all back and forth going nowehere discussions and just go ahead with writing something that I think we can all agree is notable.  This way, we can all more quickly move on to other articles and discussions and I will gain a great deal more respect for those who see this compromise idea as reasonable editors and therefore be far less encouraged to argue rather than discuss with them in the future.  I am greatly desirous of ending the partisanship over the Warhammer articles by workingg out a compromise where if it looks like the subject currently covered by some Warhammer subject that is unlikely to pass an AfD we see if there is another subject that should be written in its place then instead of some argumentative AfD I will personally write that article which actually frees everyone else up to argue in other discussions and they in effect get the same result, but without having to contend with the usual argumentative AfD and gain greater colleagiality among all of us.  If editors are willing to grant me this, because again, the ultimate result is what we had with the current Arathi and Commander Dante, i.e. non-fiction encyclopedic articles referenced in multiple reliable secondary sources, then I too will be willing to greatly adjust how I approach AfDs and DRVs.  I see here one of the best chances we have had to find a common ground and decrease any lingering animosity among us all.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all the Warhammer nonsense and I'd be okay with that stub and Judgesurreal's withdrawal. --EEMIV (talk) 12:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Withdraw - While I agree with EEMIV that it is very strange, this recent trend that new articles about totally different topics are being created while the AFD for the old topic is going on, I have talked with the Pumpkin King, and he has suggested that he will be able to build up an article about the new real world topic with reliable sources. As a sign of good faith, I am going to withdraw this AFD so that he can do just this, thus effectively deleting the Warhammer stuff that is totally not notable, with an article that will actually be quality. I will state though, that I will be watching closely to verify that this is done, so that I will know I was assuming good faith and was rewarded for it. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this AFD, I hope in a few days a new, much better article will be here because of your vigorous support of notability and wikipedias policies. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 07:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Per agreement with EEMIV and Judgesurreal777, I have completely rewritten the article. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.