Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)

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

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the numerous space marine legions that can used by players as part of game playing. All sources are the numerous codexes (instruction manuals) and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with other legions, none of these items have any real world notability, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past. The generic subject of Space marines and their use in the game is covered in the article of the same name (although that needs heavy clean-up to make it real world) - so if AFD'd, all articles should redirect there. Allemandtando (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages using the same rationale:




 * Delete all per WP:FICTION. Primary sources can be used to verify information but not to establish notability; the material within is also unsalvageably in-universe. Only the Blood Angels have been covered by secondary sources in the past, due to their iconic presence in Space Hulk (video game) and its sequel, but even then the chapter itself is a seconary footnote which can be adequately covered in the game articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Dark Angels are the chapter featured in the original 1993 Space Hulk video game. The Blood Angels were featured in the 1995 sequel.  If software published by companies outside of Games Workshop is a viable secondary source, it would also cover the Blood Ravens (Dawn of War) and the Ultramarines (Chaos Gate).Khanaris (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No games using GW IP are independent, so they can't be counted as secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what was your point about the Blood Angels? If they had secondary source coverage for the 1995 sequel, the others did as well.  All of the games were covered to one extent or another.Khanaris (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure, to be honest. I was trying to pick out what little counterarguments I could. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have given this a lot of thought recently. The problem is that nothing in Warhammer 40k has any independent notability.  Not in terms of sources, but in terms of context.  Even though I can find reviews of the games and books, they only speak to the notability of those publications, and not the content within them.  A page on Space Hulk should contain some information about who its protagonists were and how they were presented.  But that doesn't mean they should have their own page.  That is why I think the individual 40k codexes and sourcebooks would be a better way of listing some of this information, since at least the codex exists as a nonfictional entity.  But Dark Angels treated as an element of data has no relevance except as a logical "child" of the Warhammer 40k background.  It is also easier to present it in a factual way, since you can preface in-universe descriptions with a note that this is what the book describes.Khanaris (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all 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, as well as per WP:FICTION being "still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Also, they are titular in nature.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all WP:FICTION is a proposed policy guideline but it sets a generally more lenient stance toward notability than the current applicable guideline: WP:GNG.  It isn't universal, but if it doesn't meet the proposed WP:FICT, it won't meet the GNG.  For the uninitiated, the articles above describe individual unit level groups of the Space Marines (which is itself a subset of the imperium of man, a race in 40K).  For play purposes, these were distinguished by different coloring scheme (and for occasionally serious players, certain RP considerations determined whether or not units would be deployed in a certain fashion or what makeup would comprise the unit).  An equivalent article for the real world would be something like the 11th Field Artillery Regiment.  Notable if they have some history (like the 1st Infantry Regiment (United States)), but otherwise not inherently notable due to their affiliation with the United States Army.  As with each of these 40K nominations, it helps to note that all of the referenced sources are from Games Workshop or through contract with them--sufficient for WP:V, but not WP:N.  This information (insofar as it is not a copyvio) belongs on a dedicated warhammer wiki without the guidelines for notability that wikipedia has.  Then they can add WP:GAMEGUIDE information, information that we might otherwise remove in accordance with WP:WAF and so forth. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The WP:FICT points are valid, but the WP:GAMEGUIDE points are a little off. The source material does come partially from "instruction manuals", but it also comes from published novels that involve the background but have nothing to do with the tabletop game itself.  In the game, the models are indeed only distinguished by rules and color scheme.  But in the background, which is what this article describes, they are distinguished by separate histories.Khanaris (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The codexes are instruction manuals and "informational" manuals akin to supplements for lands and/or creatures in DND. What I'm suggesting for gamguide purposes is not that these articles contain gameguide materials (they don't) but that an article on hammerwiki's 40k wiki could mix history and "gameguide" material (though the gameguide would just include suggested makeup of units).Protonk (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not arguing that. But the material presented here is drawn from sources outside of the codexes.  The background material and the game rules have to be treated seperately.  This is a little different from a video game that could have a comprehensive strategy guide.  Gameguide material for 40k is never going to be viable on any wiki that doesn't allow original research.  And the details of specific rules and profiles can not be listed as per GW's IP policies.  That would be up to whatever wiki wanted to pick it up, but in general that sort of thing is better left to discussion forums than encyclopaedias.  Khanaris (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all The points about "in-universe" content can never be addressed with the structure as it stands now. The only way to rewrite the content so that it does fit a real-world context is to frame the individual books.  Individual Codexes do have a real-world component in the way they have influenced the game, the background, and the community.  Their fictional content can be verified by direct references from other GW publications, and made notable by references to third party publications that share their background (mostly the computer games, but possibly the novels as well).  The general guidelines do not specify that no shared license may exist, only that the reference can not have been published by the company that created the work.  It should be enough that the creative teams were different.  "Warhammer 40k" as an idea is not a work of fiction.  Along with the game, it is a fictional setting created by the sum of many different works from multiple authors and multiple publishers.Khanaris (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Essentially, what is happening here is that one or two editors have decided to undertake a comprehensive sweep of the dozens of pages dedicated to the fictional elements of Warhammer 40k. I am seeing the same two or three names pop up in every one of these AfD.  This is different than someone with a grudge going in and deleting pages dedicated to a hobby or setting they don't like, which is what has been implied.  However, I think it is better to do all of this at the same time.  Wikipedia would be better off if a standard policy regarding fictional notability was adopted, since then there wouldn't be such a warren of lost links and disorganized pages.  Deleting them piece-meal like this is not really a good answer.  The policy should be set first, and then applied evenly across the entire range of content.  Furthermore, the same policies that apply here should be extended to Warhammer Fantasy as well.  They should also extend to every other fictional game setting.  Dungeons and Dragons has this problem with most of its pages.  Warmachine has it with all of its pages.  Third Party sources do not exist to provide notability because the companies involved would consider such sources to be in violation of their IP.  Unless the content has existed for long enough to draw academic interest, it can not generate third party sources.  This does not accurately cover how noteworthy the information might be, since the strict interpretation of IP rules is an artificial constraint on coverage.  I think the notability requirements in this case need to account for the scope of the non-third-party material.  There is a big difference in notability between someone that has been mentioned once in a single book and something that has become an icon within a specific community due to use by numerous authors in numerous publications under the same umbrella IP constraints.  As it is now, there are hundreds of settings where this problem exists.  Books, games, and movies.  Almost every comic book younger than 30 years.  All but a handful of Star Wars and Star Trek pages.  Every medium where fiction can be presented.  From the fact these thousands of pages exist here, many of them well-researched and well-written, it can be gathered that this is something people are interested in preserving in an encyclopedic format.  You can push all of these topics off to for-profit sites like Wikia, but I am not sure that is really honoring what Wikipedia is supposed to be.  Khanaris (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty nuanced and thoughtful take on the situation. In these cases, I think waiting for a policy change before undertaking action is not a fruitful course.  Unlike BLP or OR, what we have here is a difference of degree.  Current guidelines suggest that the sourcing seen here is not sufficient to merit an article but don't go so far as to make that determination explicit.  I don't want the determination made explicit, as black and white rules tend to be unwieldy.  Even if we do get a rule change dictating that notability is inherited from fictional projects to subsets, we won't eliminate the need to work through areas piecemeal to fish out what consensus is.  Hopefully a guideline change will emerge that makes these debates less subject to acrimony, but I'm not holding my breath. Protonk (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep until policy is finalised for ALL fiction. I agree with most of User:Khanaris' summary. However, I think there might be a bit of a hypocriticism going on. A cursory glance at the initiator's (User:Allemandtando) talk page reveals s/he has an interest in Star Wars. A further check of the article s/he claims to have made a contribution to (Lightsabre, Lightsabre combat, Imperial stormtrooper, Clone Trooper, Blaster (Star Wars), Rip Hunter) reveals lots of non-notable fictional elements with no independent sourcing. This is not surprising, but perhaps these should be AfD'd along with every other article covering fictional objects/ characters/ places? I see no reason why WH40K has been singled out and can only assume someone is making a point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ehh, no. Most of the "contributions" asserted on those pages are removal of "cruft" and efforts to merge non-notable pages with others in order to produce something approximating a notable page (see the AfD for lightsaber combat).  If you are asserting that Allemantando is adding information to the wiki without sourcing it, then assert that.  If you are further asserting that such alleged activity voids his rationale for deletion, then please back that claim up.  Also, if you "can only assume" bad faith, you should try harder.  As for fixing all 40K pages in current form until policy changes can be made, I'm all ears, assuming you can show me some compelling policy option to WP:GNG that has a snowball's chance of achieving consensus.  As it stands, the two instructions that would replace/supplant WP:N on this subject (WP:TOYS and WP:FICTION) would also result in the deletion of the article in question. Protonk (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The point was, for those who missed it: A user makes lots of AfDs but seemingly misses out the articles s/he has chosen to highlight on their own user page, all of which would satisfy the criteria listed for justifying the AfDs. Regardless of the nature of that contribution, this is unbalanced. More importantly it serves to illustrate that there is much larger problem with articles covering fictional matters. Either they all get deleted or they all stay. In essence what I am saying is: you cannot have your cake and eat it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And my points is WP:AGF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I also noted that lightsaber combat got an AfD and that lightsaber was made borderline notable by the inclusion of content from lightsaber combat.  But the point stands.  Show that his editing reflects bad faith or please assume good faith.  The nominator is not a reason for keeping an article. Protonk (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well put your money where your mouth is - if you think those articles aren't notable and I'm playing favourites - AFD them and demonstrate that. Otherwise, it's just hot air. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No I don't make points for the sake of it, talking of which, User:Protonk, I can spam policy links too: like this and this or perhaps even this given my concern over why this genre has been singled out. Neither of you have addressed my argument that this is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can spam those policy links, why don't you follow them. If your SOLE argument as to the content of this AfD is that other articles exist which haven't been deleted, that's not very persuasive.  You want to accuse Alle of disrupting wikipedia to make a point but the only way he can prove that he is doing this in good faith is to nominate another hundred articles for deletion?  Like I said above, if you can provide some solid, policy based reason why these articles should not be deleted, I'm more than happy to switch "sides". Protonk (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Every single article I've send to AFD has been deleted - so clearly it cannot be disruptive as the community agrees with my assessment of those articles. If I was sending article after article here and getting "Keep" and was then still sending them, you'd have a point as it would be disruptive to work against that message. But I'm not getting that message. I'm using a community process in an entirely legitimate way. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - No assertion of notability through reliable sources, and no legitimate assertion that any will be found or created in the future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * delete all These articles are entirely "in world". WP:PLOT (part of the official policy WP:NOT) reads "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." these articles run far over a "concise plot summary" and contain none of the treatment of reception, impact and significance of these topics. Without real-world context and analysis (properly sourced) there is nothing here to inform us about the historical significance, the notability, of the works.  It is simply a collection of arbitrary facts about the backstory of a group of fictional characters of unknown meaning, importance or notability. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think something like this may have salvageable purposes for an article on Angels in popular culture. -- Happy Bastille Day!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * except for them not being angels or notable in popular culture? --Allemandtando (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They are Dark Angels and Warhammer is an aspect of popular culture. -- Happy Bastille Day!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't pass the smell test for WP:OR or WP:SYN in a million years. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm only worried about 2008 at present. :)  In any event, we then would need to see what kind of sources do exist on such topics in fiction, popular culture, etc. The main thing though, regarding this AfD is that the nomination says "all articles should redirect there", i.e. to some other article.  We don't need AfDs for redirects.  -- Happy Bastille Day!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :) What I'm looking to avoid is making an article like Florida Keys in popular culture by noting that the fast attack submarine USS Key West (SSN-722) is named after Key West, Florida and appears in Red Storm Rising. Protonk (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, keep and keep again. This gaj really does seem to be just going through all the WH40K articles and adding delete tags to them this week. A fully notable topic, part of a very well known game, many books and maybe even a computer game or two ( unsure on this one though didn't notice it was another mass deletion attempt. There definatly are games here). Far less notable fictional worlds are entitled to having multiple articles, why not wh40k?--Him and a dog 22:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then those areas need cleaning up or deleting as well - I cannot work in every area - this is an area that has a) no regular editors and b) nobody doing clean-up - I'm pretty much it at the moment. If I don't do it, it's not happening - that's why I'm concentrating on this area - because nobody else can be bothered beyond moaning on talkpages. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bit of a facile argument. You're not "working" on this area - you'd have found some references by now if you'd been putting as much effort into searching as you have into throwing up AfDs. Newspaper reviews, business supplements, magazines - it's all out there. However, it would take time to find and I note from the actual project pages that this behaviour has scared off the editors who did have an interest, so perhaps it's not wonder that they are not been cared for. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Is it? I cannot find those sources you are talking about - please free to add any of those sources you say exist - I obtained a complete set of the warhammer 40k manuals to work with, I had one of my researchers look for sources, I examined paid for academia and media sources that are not available to the public - nothing turns up. If those sources exist, I'd like you to add them to the articles - then this AFD is over. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all and merge any verifiable and notable content into Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). No doubt the game is notable, and even the major races of the game are notable.  But factions of the major races of the game?  Uh, no, sorry. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note Merge and delete. -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - all fail WP:NOT, no assertion of notability to satisfy WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 08:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all per our first pillar, which reminds us that we are an encyclopedia, not a fandom repository. Eusebeus (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per our first pillar, it is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete 40k-cruft (Yes, cruft. Crufty cruft cruft.)  Now let me prove this is cruft. They fail the general notability guideline, the proposed toys and games notability guidelines, the proposed fiction notability guidelines and is unverifiable outside primary sources.  The articles utterly ignore the writing about fiction guidelines. The leads are sort of out-of-universe, then the articles dive into in-universe plot summaries that stitched together from various sources into a cohesive storyline. --Phirazo 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not call things cruft. Also, please be sure to use edit summaries, i.e. indicate if you are posting an argument, replying, etc.  Thanks!  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not faff about stuff that doesn't matter and ignore the arguments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is cruft, though. No other word captures the fanboyish nature of these articles. Also, why are you pointing out the lack of an edit summary?  I'm not the only one who didn't leave one.  --Phirazo 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fan cruft (extra bit to annoy Le Roi: CRUFTcruftcruftcruft cruft cruuuuuuuuft) of the most useless sort. GW periodically introduces variations on their armies for their games, to justify selling books that amount to game advantages for painting models a certain color. Nobody but WH40K fans really cares about this, most WH40K fans don't care about the paper-thin setting justifications, and, most importantly, nobody's seen fit to comment on any of these in reliable sources of any sort. (In before useless links to essays or "WP:N is totally disputed! Seriously guys!") - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought I'd give you something to do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break: Dark Angels
I notice that Dark Angels redirects to the page under discussion here. Given the titular coverage in various diverse published books of that phrase "dark angels", I would think if anything, this article should merge and redirect there, no? In other words, I'm starting to think that we can and should have a totally separate article that addresses Dark Angels in general as a larger, not Warhammer specific topic. -- Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge what content? The Dark Angels page was created (presumably) as a redirect to this page.  The issue of creation of a new and separate page isn't important to this AfD.  If someone wants to make a page on "dark angels" then they are welcome to.  As of right now we would just be merging the contents of this page into a page that is blank.  That is indistinguishable from moving the current page.  Doesn't change the fact that all of the articles up for AfD here lack the independent sourcing needed to establish notability. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The verifiable content (the article does have a reference section after all). In an article on Dark Angels, it could have some message to these dark angels that would allow for this article to redirect to that one.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The references are to GW guides, GW's own house magazine, or one single personal WH40K fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which would be substantially enough within an article on Dark Angels, i.e. a reference to their appearances, use in this notable game and thus legitimates a redirect. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you make a "list of things named Dark Angel or variations thereof", we'll be back here at AFD. If you can come up for a thesis for such an article that is something other than that, go ahead, but it doesn't have anything to do with this. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a list, a regular text based article divided into sections based mostly on all those books in the Google search. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see a single coherent topic among all of those books, and you haven't proposed one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic would be "Dark Angels" and how that phrase is used in various contexts. -- Happy editing! Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What is your thesis, so it doesn't become "List of things named Dark Angel"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I have a thesis, it would be original research. Dark Angels appear to be a relevant topic in regards to religious studies and so an article should cover that, but it could also note that the term is also used in other contexts and provide choice notable examples in prose format.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That book uses the word "dark" and the word "angel", but not in proximity (as in the same PAGE) as each other. Last bit of advice before we drop this unproductive thread: articles without theses tend to be pretty useless and terrible and quickly end up on AFD. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you scroll down on the page linked directly above, it has a section titled "Christ's Defeat of the Dark Angels". How is that not in close proximity on the same page?  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Boy-o. Making an article titled "Dark Angels" to put 40K content into on the basis that the sources are now "independent" from the subject of the article is called one thing: Gaming the system.  No ifs ands or buts.  If you feel that the term "dark angel" represents some encyclopedic subject (apart from Dark Angel, Warren Worthington III, or Fallen angel (disambiguation)), then you are free to create such a page.  If the purpose of the page is primarily to retain the content of Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000), that is totally inappropriate. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is totally not what I was saying. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are we merging, then, distinct from what is in the articles listed directly above? Protonk (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In an article on Dark Angels (which I am holding off starting, because I want to see how the discussion plays out and hopefully with some fresh eyes as well) that focuses on its use in say the religious context, I can see a small section titled "Other uses" in which we mention in prose that the term has also been used in fantasy games and other works of fiction, i.e. some brief merge along those lines. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But what part of this hypothetical article would compel us to merge content from this article? We could make one and delete the other and never the twain shall meet. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly a good number of editors and readings believe Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) is a legitimate search term based on the article's edit history and traffic. Thus, I suspect people come here hoping for some information on it and as such we can use a small amount of the verifiable stuff in a small paragraph in the proposed new article that could allow for a redirect that presevers editors' edit histories, something of intense value in RfAs.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer to my question. My question was, what hypothetical article would we create that would compel us to merge content from one (of many) articles in this AfD to it?  If you feel that question is premature (in other words, it would be unfair for me to ask it if you haven't created the article yet), that is totally cool.  I have no bones to make with a response like that. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's it, I'm trying to get some ideas on what approach to take to an article on Dark Angels and in what way we could merge some of this to that in a small section on other uses of the term as I believe editors and readers will see encyclopedic value in considering that the term is not merely used in the mainstream religious context. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Return to main discussion

 * Agree on a systematic way to merge these with appropriate redirects. The only thing that will work for now when there is such a basic disagrement on content is a compromise solution. DGG (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the same solution which worked so well on this AfD would not work here, given that exactly the same arguments were advanced by both sides on an article with exactly the same merits. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy. Redirect (whether the page is deleted or not) to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) or List of Space Marine Chapters (I would prefer the fist choice). Protonk (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hum, I've never noticed that - Lists of.. seems to a duplicate of content already in the space marines article, so it should be redirected them (as should the "lists of"). --Allemandtando (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * List of Space Marine Chapters is terrible. I recognize some of these chapters as one-offs from short stories or minor chapters created for White Dwarf articles. Ugh! - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I redirected it. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy | T | 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Perhaps redirect to the Space Marines article. GoldDragon (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looking through other articals there seems to be little justification for this deleat over others. For example, many articals on Lord of the Rings are in a simelar fasion, with little more than refrences to the books, and fan speculation (seemingly more accepted as academic texts for no reason). The 40K universe is huge, with a grate deal of background. It seems that many of the people asking for deleation see it as nothing more than a kids game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.239.150 (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

additional keep reason: sorry to add it on here but a major reason to delete here is that these are 'sub-factions': for the dark angels, blood angels and space wolves this isn't quite entirely so. They have their own codexes and have for some time. Also as mentioned elsewhere there are many novels dealing just with them.--Him and a dog 13:09, 18 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.