Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cult Mechanicus


 * 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. Contact me or any other admin if you require a copy to transwiki to the Warhammer wiki. Neıl 龱  10:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cult Mechanicus

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

This sub-article of a sub-article of an article describes the in-universe philosophical basis for a fictional religious position. No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Allemandtando (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the abovementioned "summary of this concept ... present in another larger umbrella article", whereever it is. -- saberwyn 09:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Take content and move it to the Adeptus Mechanicus article. AlmondManTwo (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * do you have anything to say about the actual article? I don't think "keep based on nominator" is a reason that's considered acceptable at AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Acknowledges itself as fictional element, meets notability guidelines for same. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (copied from above...no reason to write a unique response for an identical claim.) This, like the other articles noted, fails to meet WP:FICT, WP:GNG, and WP:TOYS. Because it is fiction does not make it inherently notable.  The notability guidelines aren't stringent.  They do not require that the sisters of battle cure cancer, just that an independent, reliable source wrote something about them.  White Dwarf, Fanatic Magazine (this fanatic, as there are lots of mags w/ the same name) and the manuals for play are all printed by the game manufacturer.  They are not independent of the article subject.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no out of universe notability, no independent sources and fails WP:TOYS --T-rex 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing is not independent. Notability is neither asserted by the article nor established by the source.  This WOULD be easier if it were all in one afd. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * apologies for that - I didn't realise I could do that. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No big deal. There are pros and cons with that, presuming that articles are sufficiently distinct from each other. Protonk (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete without prejudice, both articles appear to have some notability assuming descriptions are true however lack pf independant secondary sources fails to meet the criteria in WP:N. Admin or crat closing may change my suggestion to merge if some sources are added to verify the veracity of the articles, however I do not believe that each subject deserves distinct articles, the content of Cult Mechanicus should be merged to the main article. BigHairRef | Talk 06:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete. Notability isn't established by references independent of Games Workshop and its subsidiaries.  This fails WP:WAF and (the spirit of) WP:NOT and WP:GAMETRIVIA (and, yes, I know that WH40K isn't primarily a video game, that's why I said the "spirit of").  --Craw-daddy | T | 00:10, 9 July 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.