Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Araby (Warhammer)


 * 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. Black Kite (t)  00:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Araby (Warhammer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

IMHO the subject of the article fails to fulfil the Notability requirements, and more specifically WP:NRVE. Another policy that also applies is WP:NOTMANUAL (Wikipedia is not a sourcebook for a fictional setting). The subject is largely unimportant for the fictional setting itself, not being one of the major fictional political factions. The article's information is suspect because it simply lacks inline citations (since its creation in 2006) and to be honest I personal believe that some of it is simple fan speculation ("are said to"). The subject is already mentioned in a short and proper fashion in the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy and that should be more than enough. This article is IMHO an example of simple WP:Fancruft. Thank you for your attention. Flamarande (talk) 14:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are articles on every country in Warhammer. We should either have articles on all of them or none of them. Deleting odd articles here and there is inconsistent and not helpful to the project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There are some countries that are more important than others. The less important ones (i.e.:without a playable army in Warhammer Fantasy Battle) can be mentioned in the article Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy and simply don't require their own articles. I also wish to point out that every article is a separate case. Flamarande (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course it is. But inconsistency also does not look good. Also note that the Warhammer World is not used solely in Warhammer Fantasy Battle, but also in the novels and in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Frankly, I'd be quite happy if all the articles were redirected to a larger article, but I don't think deleting some articles and not others is at all helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may always propose all articles for deletion (for consistency's sake). But some will argue that subject A or D is worthy/notable enough and will vote against the deletion of any article at all. I prefer to judge every article by itself and then propose the deletion of the worst ones (who fail in regard to specific Wiki-policies). I'm not arguing that you are wrong and that I'm right, I'm only pointing out that a long voyage may be done with single steps. Flamarande (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it no more inconsistent than that we have articles on some politically active persons on not on others, on some writers but not others, on some constructed languages (e.g. Esperanto) but not others. I agree with Flamarande – some countries can be more important than others in a fictional setting. It's not inconsistent to judge them indivually, it's prudent. I'd rather say that us being too categorical is not helpful for the project. /Julle (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge (if a suitable merge target can be found or created) or Delete. All the sources are primary sources; unless secondary sources can be found, a stand-alone article for this article (or any other setting article based on only primary sources) does not meet WP:GNG. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've seen a rise in the use of WP:MANUAL/WP:GAMEGUIDE for RPG setting stuff, and as this case exemplifies, it's not appropriate. This article is very short and it's not a how-to guide or hint book of any sort; it's no more inappropriate to talk about a Warhammer region than it is to discuss literary settings like Middle-earth. What may differentiate them is notability. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (Further) Comment to NOM: Inline citations is not a justification under the Wikipedia guidelines of deletion. That's a cleanup/improvement issue. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * None of my concerns is the lack of inline citations: one of my concerns is that some parts of the article are IMHO plain OR (the parts "are said to" are IMHO simple fan-speculation). Flamarande (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks references to substantial third-party coverage.  Sandstein   20:45, 22 November 2011 (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.