Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armies of 40k


 * 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 Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 in lieu of deletion (there may be a better redirect, feel free to change). —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-10 20:28Z 

Armies of 40k

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - Unspeedied, but it is non-notable, WP:WING, WP:VSCA Avi 02:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - while it's definitely notable, we already have articles about all of this material. This is a useless list.  --Haemo 03:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  03:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete but the nominator's reasons are unsound. Warhammer 40K is absolutely notable, and so are the armies that are used in it.  Nor is this in any way a game guide.  There is in fact zero information about the mechanics of the game in this article.  But I'm still saying delete because the existing articles on the game serve the purpose quite well.  I'd have prod'd it myself, or gone with a redirect, but whatever.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Manticore. Warhammer 40,000 is definitely notable. The article isn't a game guide either. However, it is poorly-written, act as a list, right now consists of original research, and is rather useless as the separate army pages serve its purpose for now. I'll create a page like this later this year when my WP backlog is done with, but right now this page should go. Shrumster 08:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. These armies are notable. However the article requires clean-up (and possibly moving to a different namespace). Axl 10:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and/or Rewrite as per FrozenPurpleCube. This would be a decent article if it weren't just a list of names. -Ryanbomber 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete, rewrite It's notable if it's improved, otherwise delete. Whilding87  19:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete pending better sources and cleanup The article provides no independent references outside the game rules. As per WP:NOT, plot summary articles for fiction should include references and text containing a real world context or analysis, and should not consist of simply listing plot elements.  If the article can be expanded to include sourced text explaining something about these armies outside of just the game rules, then I'd reconsider. As noted above, Warhammer 40K is itself a notable game, but that doesn't exclude subarticles about the game from needing independent referencing in their own right. Dugwiki 20:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Have you looked at this page?  FrozenPurpleCube 21:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Totall about plot make in violate WP:FICT. No relvance outside of its own fandom--Dacium 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article has almost nothing to do with the plot or fiction of the Warhammer universe whatsoever.    I would say absolutely nothing, but I suppose listing the armies by faction almost qualfies.  Still, I'd say your objection is not applicable to this article.  If anything, the talk page seems to indicate an intent to make the article about the game, rather than the story of the game. FrozenPurpleCube 22:32, 6 February 2007 (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.