Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Arbites


 * 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 no consensus  with a recommendation that interested editors consider starting a merge discussion. Contributors could not agree on whether the available (or potential) sources were adequate to satisfy WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability policies. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Adeptus Arbites

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

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) or the like (surprise, not a flat-out deletion on this one). Pretty sure there are independent sources which have covered the overt copying of the 2000AD Judges, especially given that GW used to license from 2000AD. Most of the article is still in-universe junk, mind. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:49, 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. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This one is a headscratcher. This article is awful, but merging it to Imperium dumps it into an even worse mire. Under all the fancruft is a game line sold by Games Workshop, about which we could actually write an article (or an article subsection I guess). Weak keep, with no prejudice against deleting every single word in this crufty article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the kerfluffle about characters offers both the remote chance of secondary sourcing and out of universe discussion. Odd that someone would make a stink about 40K ripping off other fiction but say little about some other bits of borrowing in the world of space marines and orcs.  Protonk (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:PERNOM. Thanks and -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Lets not go crazy here. Transwiki to /dev/null Testmasterflex (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  10:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this and all other articles* Let's not go crazy here. Let's slow down our deletion and discuss things in a more relaxed manner. How many articles have you deleted? At least a hundred. Why do me and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles have to keep reminding you? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if the articles had even a shred of real-world context (how they were used in the game, what processes went into the design, relevant influences etc) and had some reliable sources that satisfied WP:SOURCES I wouldn't have a problem. I'm a huge 40K fan, but I can't see any reason to have encyclopedia articles that tell me nothing about the actual entity as it applies to the game, but have vast quantities of plot and background that make them read like a Black Library flyer. --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 14:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion started in earnest in November last year. You have been aware of it since at least December of last year, though you chose not to discuss the issue centrally with the rest of us. I don't consider nine months of planning and discussion to be drastic haste. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I had no idea this project even existed for several months till the deletion began. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and Delete. I hadn't heard of the Adeptus Arbites before, but given the article's length, they are important in 40k.  Lets just transwiki the article, and let someone merge it if they want.  I must agree with Nemesis646 on one thing, though; there seems to be a crusade akin to the Horus Heresy to remove 40k related articles, and I'm starting to lose faith in the system.  Tealwisp (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was transwikied eight days ago, and this "crusade" has been planned in detail since November last year on the 40k WikiProject talk page. It couldn't have been made any clearer. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Horus Heresy wasn't really a crusade, either. It was a civil war.  The Great Crusade, starting in the millennium before the Horus Heresy, would be a better comparison.210.160.15.16 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no third-party sources. Transwiki sounds like a good plan.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent sources. Not notable on its own --T-rex 21:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of merging, but i'd say merge is the best course of action, since at least some of the content is sourced. If a merge isn't proper then keep per above. Wizardman  21:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - While there are some sources cited, they are ALL primary sources. WP:SOURCES says we need "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"  Primary sources simply can't be used to establish notability. --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 08:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I concur with Wizardman. Eh, this one will probably end up without consensus...  Lady   Galaxy  22:31, 28 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.