Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grey Knights


 * 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) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Grey Knights

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

Purely in-universe reiteration of plot material. Previously redirected to the (now-deleted) Daemonhunters, redirect and subsequent prod reverted without rationale by anons. No notability established through reliable third-party sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 10:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I understand why the anon reverted it, because it was redirecting to a now non-existent page. So I have no hard feelings towards them. However, while there are copious third party references to WH40K in general, there are no third party sources addressing the Grey Knights in depth.  Third party source references to the Grey Knights are minimal and trivial at best.  The only sources which cover them in depth are first party sources, by Games Workshop or Games Workshop subsidiaries.  Thus, while it's interesting as hell (I'm big into 40K), it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for notability.  I wish Wikipedia allowed this type of article, but this discussion isn't about what we wish Wikipedia did or didn't allow, but whether this particular page satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia.  So Warhammer 40K passes the Wikipedia notability requirement.  The Grey Knights, as a separate and independent page, does not.  Notability is not inherited, so all that's left is the argument that this is a description of part of the description of a notable topic.  While this does satisfy the Five Pillars, it falls afoul of "What Wikipedia Is Not", specifically: "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."  A 20K breakout page of one single aspect of a notable work (the work being the game WH40K itself) is pretty much the precise opposite of "concise".  A single, short, non-compound sentence somewhere in the 40K article itself would be appropriate given the breadth of 40K and the significance of the Grey Knights within it.210.160.15.16 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:RS and WP:V ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") by relying on primary sources. Has no real-world context. --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 13:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete Outside of one half of the first sentence of this article, it's all in-universe material. More relevant to a deletion discussion, there's no independent references to demonstrate notability.  --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Just out of interest - transwiki to what? Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To the Warhammer 40k wikia. --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete All the sources are published by Games Workshop or its subsidiary, and I can't imagine any others outside fan sites and so on, so it fails WP:N on independent sources. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent sources, so no notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:43, 28 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.