Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos (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 redirect to Warhammer 40,000. The policy based reasons are making the far stronger argument here. Courcelles (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Chaos (Warhammer)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Aspects of the lore of a fictional setting. Consists almost only of a summary of the fiction (WP:NOTPLOT), has almost no inline references (WP:V) and cites no sources that are independent from the company producing the fiction (WP:GNG). There are many fan wikis for such material, but Wikipedia is not one of them.  Sandstein  18:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy.   Sandstein   18:12, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment There are actually a number of secondary sources about the topic out there, which give both plot summary and commentary, like this paper, and to a degree this paper, this book, and this review of the Black Crusade RPG (p. 66-68). Daranios (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect. This seems like a case of WP:TNT. As Daranios notes, this may be a notable topic, but the current article is nothing but abysmally underreferenced WP:FANCRUFT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure this article is even properly constructed. There are a lot of topics covered under this heading, including gods, marines, locations, and more. The topic as titled doesn't have third-party sources, and it's hard to find sources for something so vague. Someone might be able to construct a more focused article if they had a more defined scope. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As has indicated, "Chaos" is one of the main factions within Warhammer 40,000. So it's not suprising that the article covers their characters/troops, territories, mythological overlords and metaphysical underpinnings, and to me it makes sense to have that in one place as the broader topic, as long as individual sub-topics don't have so much material that they should have a separate article. Daranios (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, even if I still think the article has a confusing and WP:INDISCRIMINATE scope. A redirect or selective merge would be an acceptable solution. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to Warhammer 40,000 considering sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A merger wouldn't remedy the content issues explained in the nomination. The problem is that the present content is fancruft that Wikipedia is not a suitable place for. A deletion and redirect to Warhammer 40,000 (also unsourced...) would be better, as it would allow editors to develop sourced content there and conceivably spin it off later again if it becomes too large.  Sandstein   13:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - This has been here for over 20 years. Tons of people were involved with it and few of them are going to be here in this debate, due to how old this article is. The attempt may not to be to WP:GAME but that's what indirectly happens as the people involved have moved on and can't make their case. There's tons of references and it has a lot of information that would not fit in a merge. I'm really not aware of the media ever dedicating large bios to characters in games since everything that we get told about the characters is fact. I also don't see what the gain is from removing it. The site doesn't become better without it and people who want that information are either not going to have access to it or will just go to other sites.Additionally, since there's other alien races listed, my concern would be that the same logic would be used to delete those too.KatoKungLee (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Warhammer 40,000. Entirely fictional cruft, but deleting would be somewhat pointless when it's a valid redirect. Not deleting would allow it to be recreated if someone could prove notability, per WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This needs trimming the plot summary, sourcing and addition of analytical material. But I believe the topic is notable, based on the sources listed above and others. And some of the plot-summary would be kept, so I do not think it is a case of WP:TNT. I've also shown at short examples that some of the material can be sourced with secondary (and of course primary) sources. Obviously I would prefer a selective merge to Warhammer 40,000 to deletion, but to me that's the second-best solution only. Daranios (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major facet of a major fictional world. Plenty has been written about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect the empty page to Warhammer 40,000: This represents the spirit of WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:FANCRUFT in the extreme. 5000 words dedicated to detailed in-universe plot exposition that makes MOS:FICTION sweat at night. It's bad when the fan Wikia, Lexicanum, has a more tightly edited page on the faction than we do. To those who are concerned about a large amount of content being removed -- there are multiple Warhammer wikis that don't have the same standards that we do where the content could be helpful.  Nomader  ( talk ) 05:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nomader above. There comments fit perfectly.  // Timothy :: talk  01:50, 19 March 2023 (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.