Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind (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   deleted per G4 and WP:SNOW. Shereth 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000)

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

No real-world context, fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not the first AfD for this article. The article was moved to Emperor of Mankind, AfD'd here with a delete result, then recreated as a redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), under the appropriate heading.  gnfnrf (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) I propose the same as above for this version. gnfnrf (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no references to denote notability, and for all the delete reasons given at Articles_for_deletion/Emperor_of_Mankind. From what I recall (as I'm not an admin and can't view the previously deleted page), this is a substantial copy of the previously deleted page, created about two weeks following the close of the previously mentioned AfD.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Craw-daddy and per failure satisfy WP:N by showing multiple reliable sources with substantial coverage which are independent of the publisher of the fiction or game. Edison (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given all these hits, it's sufficiently verifiable and notable. Plus, the article was only created less than a week ago and so we should Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Give an article a chance.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Zero evidence of notability through reliable sources, we don't "Give articles a chance" when they give us no reason to. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In this case the unquestionable notability provided by reliable sources means we have to give this article a chance. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted about a month ago, has no references, so your suggestion cannot possibly be serious. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was unujustifiably deleted and can be referenced as seen in a simple search. Imagine what we'd actually accomplish if we all spent time doing that, i.e. actually building the encyclopedia and working together to reference articles, rather than going back and forth in totally unwarranted AfDs...  That editors would try again with this article and some work on and argue to keep again is just further proof that the community actually wants this article kept regardless of the same individuals unwilling to help improve it here and there.-- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Building a quality encyclopedia is as much about what you don't include as what you include. There need to be clear definitions of what is and is not encyclopedic, and things like notability are clear lines that must be respected. Imagine how much you could accomplish if you spent your time taking articles to GA and FA status instead of filibustering the regular cleaning of the encyclopedia of stuff that does not belong. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be able to build more GA and FA articles if others who filibuster for deletion in unnecessary AfDs did not have to be countered. Given that I have nominated and argued to delete over fifty articles, I agree that plenty does need to be cleaned out, but that is primarily hoaxes, libel, copy vios, etc. not verifiable subjects that can be written into paragraphs based on these sources as is the case with the article under discussion here.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 21:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. As it stands, the article fails WP:NOT. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Speedy delete per CSD G4. See Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind. Same subject. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete, CSD G4. Roi knows full well that if he wants this fancruft kept then the correct venue is DRV, not supporting single-purpose accounts who repeatedly recreate it and then copy-pasting old keep comments in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSCRUFT is never a valid reason for deletion. AfDs are not the end all on what content we cover.  They are merely a snapshot in time and if after the AfD has closed and editors wish to try again on the article, they are able to do so.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD is a valid reason for deletion. That you disagree with it is irrelevant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not valid in this case; there's no reason not to have a new discussion over this non-trivial topic that is covered in reliable sources and passes PLOT. I can't see any reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect to Imperium_(Warhammer 40,000) as obviously editors believe it a legitimate search term if they keep creating the article and we have a clear redirect location.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's valid in any case where there was no DRV or other post-deletion discussion, and where the same material as pre-deletion is reinserted again without addressing the flaws which got it deleted (in this case on at least two different occasions). You know this. You can randomly assert that the article passes various standards which it doesn't all you want; it's only weakening your credibility in future AfDs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, editors don't need to DRV articles when they want to start over. We're here to build an encyclopedia and editors aren't definitively bound by any one AfD.  People can claim articles fail various standards, but it doesn't mean they actually do.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing's stopping you from starting over. It's not a salted redlink. Go on. Start it right now, working from your Google Scholar results. We'll all be thrilled to watch. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing's stopping you either. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The UEFA Cup qualifiers were stopping me earlier. Stella Artois is stopping me right now. Sleep will stop me afterwards. I'm not forced to write articles, but nor have I been handwaving about writing them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * For those same reasons, then why expect anyone else to have to rush at doing so on a volunteer project? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G4. I'll trust Sephiroth that this version doesn't address the reasons for the deletion of the previous version. Deor (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete G4. It's just a recreation of an article previously deleted at AFD. --Hank Pym (talk) 21:23, 14 August 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.