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

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Black Library (Warhammer 40,000).

This page is kept as an historic record.

A clear consensus for deletion was not reached, and the article was redirected as no one argued for outright keeping of the article.

More fancruft from Warhammer 40,000. This should at least be merged someplace if not outright deleted. I'm worried that Warhammer is becoming the new Pokemon. -R. fiend 15:46, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fancruft. jni 15:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems little possibilty to become encyclopedic, combined with some speculation, so delete. If someone can fix it I might vote to merge or keep.  &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  17:21, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - merge and redirect to Eldar Harlequins (Warhammer 40,000). The next person that VFDs an article two minutes after its creation and calls it "fancruft" is going to get a virtual kick in the face. How insulting can you be to this contributor? -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. Are you voting keep, or merge and redirect? Chris 00:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * On VfD, there are only two outcomes - delete or keep. Merge and redirect is a suggested improvement to be implemented after the vote is done. -- Netoholic @ 01:05, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
 * comment: Much more insulting than this, easily. "Fancruft" is not an insult.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Honestly? A lot more insulting. But I won't; not yet. And I don't see how waiting two minutes or two days makes a real difference; it just gives the contributor more time to add more pointless details that belong in an encyclopedia as much as what brand of scotch I got drunk on the other night. -R. fiend 05:26, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, we have articles about several brands of scotch. There's a whole Wikiproject about it. Gentgeen 13:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you will notice not one of them is titled The scotch R. fiend got drunk on the other night, nor is it mentioned in the Laphroaig article. -R. fiend 05:07, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is fancruft, and I wholeheartedly applaud the VfDing of articles that can never become encyclopedic as soon as possible. As for stubs on topics that could become encyclopedic, I agree they should be given time. I don't believe in deleting substubs on notable topics, ever, but for a bad topic, it should be deleted right away. --Improv 16:37, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain: I would say merge and redirect, but I find Netoholic's threats and chiding aggravating.  These should not exist as separate articles.  If the names are sufficiently unique (and this one is), then a redirect isn't a big problem.  The real problem is that the authors are creating dozens of articles instead of a few, beefy, informative articles.  They damage the information by making it ever more anti-contextual and irretrievable. Geogre 04:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in its current state as a redirect. - SimonP 05:14, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Send it back to whichever planet it came from. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:35, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Look, if you have the relevant games, you already have this info. If you don't have the games, you don't need it. I know what this stuff is, and I know it is fancruft, and threats of violence, virtual or otherwise, aren't going to sway me. Average Earthman 10:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "If you have the relevant games, you already have this info" isn't necessarily true of Warhammer games, given that a lot of the more prominent information only appeared in long-out-of-print RPG materials or the White Dwarf magazine, neither of which is currently supported by Games Workshop IIRC. Nevertheless, merge and redirect.  -Sean Curtin 04:35, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * This brings up a point a brought up on a Pokemon-related VfD a while ago, and I never got a response. At what point does posting such information become a copyright violation? If we had detailed articles on all the monsters in D&D people would never need to buy the Monster Manuals, and TSR would get pissed off to no end, even if we didn't transfer it word for word. -R. fiend 17:04, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have the uncomfortable feeling that the "40,000" refers to the number of articles which might appear if we allow this unworthy breakout to stand. Denni &#9775; 02:07, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.