Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. It's heretical, anyway, so extermination is for the best.  Sandstein  19:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: while I am leaning delete based on every current source being primary (the Black Library is Games Workshop's fiction publishing label), I would rather do at least a cursory internet search before I cast that vote. Does anyone have a suggestion for getting more than the 78 (bad) hits that the google link above gets, but less than the 2.3 million hits that moving the quotes to be around "Warhammer 40,000" gives? The Inquisition is an important part of WH40K, but I am not convinced it is notable. What complicates things is that there is a video game series, "Warhammer 40,000: Inquisitor".  There seem to be 2 or 3 games in the series that seem to have received reviews in various gaming publications, so the series of games might be notable, and definitely is destroying my ability to search the internet. Rockphed (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete if Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) is not notable enough for a standalone article, this is certainly not notable enough and fails GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:08, 13 October 2019 (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.