Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horus Heresy


 * 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   Keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Horus Heresy

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

An article has again been created from a redirect. It fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. Doesn't warrant a whole article, merely a comment in Warhammer 40,000 or Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect although I'd love to have all the information on this subject in a place that means I don't have to spend £1000s this should still be a redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) as far as wikipedia is concerned. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep To really get a feel for this article you need to see what it was like before it was cleaned up: old version. If it was still that version, I would have endorsed a deletion rationale with WP:PLOT.  As is, the article is written in an out of universe perspective (you can thank mean old Frederick Day for the rewrite) and is the title of two separate spinoff games in 40K.  If there ever were a piece of fictional backstory (in 40K) that ought to be saved from deletion, it's this one.  Meets WP:PLOT and WP:WAF and probably meets the WP:GNG in a marginal fashion (if one digs through the bunches of google responses for "horus heresy" you'll probably find some minor coverage of the event en passant to coverage of the subgames. Protonk (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I concede that it is a better article than it was, but it still relies on primary sources. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Purely in-universe discussion of a fictional event. Zero coverage by independent third party sources. No objection to future re-use to refer specifically to the game distributed in issue ~171 of White Dwarf, but I doubt that was ever covered sufficiently by third parties either. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? It's not great by any means, but there's no way it can be described as "purely in-universe". the wub "?!"  11:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Warhammer 40,000 or the Imperium article (wherever it is). Unlike most of these WH40K fiction articles which are completely unneeded for understanding of the game, this is one of the basic setting details, setting up the premise for the whole game. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per verifiability and notability as demonstrated by titular coverage in sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 23:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - except those sources are books published by a Games Workshop subsidiary. Can you provide any reliable sources that aren't primary sources? --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 08:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just look at reviews of the book for out of universe comments. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If even AMIB thinks it basic information necessary for understanding the game, who am I to disagree? DGG (talk) 05:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yah. I'm actually a huge WH40K fan, just not a fan of the WH40K walled garden that snuck into WP. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * confirming my opinion that it is often the fans who don't need the articles, but the other people who come here for information they don't already know. DGG (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps the fans are the only ones who care enough to make sure their fandoms are covered in an encyclopedic fashion. Who knows? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds awfully like WP:USEFUL to me. I like lots of niche things; I don't argue that they should all be deleted on WP, just the ones that aren't notable. But who am I to judge when another's preconceptions have been adequately confirmed? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A reference guide should be useful. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  10:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unlike many of the other WH40K nominations recently this is a core part of the background. Merging would also be difficult as this is shared between Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) and Chaos Space Marines, being a defining event for both. Furthermore the name is shared by a moderately notable series of novels, a collectible card game and an old GW boxed game. This page could provide background for all these, and serve as a jumping off point for the other uses. the wub "?!"  10:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and protectThis article is not at all in-universe, except perhaps the "cause" section. I wrote that, and yes, out-of-universe writing is hard, but I did a fair job of keeping it that way.  As for Fancruft, excuse my un-wikipedian language, but where the f*** did that come from? If JediLofty had seen the old article, which was longer than the 40k rulebook, too long, in fact, to get what you need quickly, there is a lot more that could have been put in.  For that reason, the article will need semi-prtection in order to stop anons from returning it to its former "glory."  Tealwisp 06:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. This article may rely on primary sources, but anyone who has tried to find 3rd party sources for warhammer (or any other fictional universe) knows that third parties will rarely publish material, and when they do, they usually end up being first party sources via licensing or similar requirements for publishing.  My point is, primary sources do not justify deletion, and we can agree that they are better than no sources. Tealwisp 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tealwisp (talk • contribs)
 * They are better than no sources for verification. They are no better than no sources for establishing notability. It is difficult to believe that GW's IP policy makes it impossible for third parties to discuss things entirely - it is considerably easier to believe that the nature of this article means that no reliable third party has ever bothered covering it for other reasons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 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.