Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Land Raider (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   redirect all to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) and protect. This solution would seem to satisfy all or most participants in this discussion: It has the desired cruft-limiting effect, but allows for a transwiki or merger to the extent that this is desired.  Sandstein  17:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Land Raider (Warhammer 40,000)

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

Also nominating:

All fascinating, truly, but there are zero independent sources and the articles are strictly in-universe. These are all candidates for transwiki-ing to the WH40K wikia, but so far nobody from the project has volunteered to do this. Jaysweet (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly suggest redirecting all of these pages to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000). The same also applies for several other pages like articles on Space Marine Chapters (i.e. the Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Ultramarines, Space Wolves, etc.); it would be great if an admin could temporarily "undelete" these deleted pages. The problem with deleting the pages is that a non-admin cannot retrieve the old version of the pages if they want to revise and shrink them down afterwards.

None of us have time at the moment to trans-wikify these pages, so it doesn't do any harm to let the page remain as it is, so I would greatly appreciate if Games Workshop enthusiasts are not served with a deadline. Furthermore, it is pretty annoying when you want to look something up a couple months from now, and its suddenly not there.

This is what User talk:Khanaris argued on Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) and I believe that it should be repeated here. "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." GoldDragon (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've asked if he can transwiki these, or let me know of someone else who can upload the edit history to the 40K wiki.  Pagra  shtak  17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Falcorian says he is willing to help transwiki these.  Pagra shtak  17:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, I am absolutely 100% on board with the "redirect & protect" option. I have been going with the AfD process because every time I change one of these articles to a redirect, I get reverted.
 * As far as doing it all at once... Well, the problem is that it is very difficult to get consensus on such a high level.  I am trying to group these together as much as possible (e.g., here I grouped all of the specific technology articles into a single nom) but my concern is that if I tried to do a single process to get everything' in WH40K, WFRP, D&D, etc. in a single go, it would just cloud the issue with all the side discussions.
 * Uneven enforcement is an unfortunate side-effect of the Wiki process. We can all just do our best.  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all All of these are units in the various factions and subfactions of 40K. their significance extends solely within the game. The existence of like terms in search results (land raider, dreadnought, etc) reflect more the lack of imagination on the part of GW in naming these units than they do any real connection between these units and the Real Life terms. All 4 articles cite only sources produced by Games Workshop (keeping in mind, as always, that White Dwarf, the codexes and the works of fiction are exclusively produced by games workshop) and cite no independent sources. As such, they have no notability per WP:GNG or any daughter guidelines. While deletion is an appropriate outcome, I'm not opposed to redirecting these articles to their parent faction or subfaction (Space Marines, Orks, etc). Protonk (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and make sure that this information has been successfully transwiki'ed, before deletion. I don't dispute that the in-universe content more properly belongs elsewhere, but I do not believe that its continued presence in Wikipedia is a disruption of sufficient magnitude to warrant its outright deletion. Just because the IP editors are unwilling to comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines doesn't mean that this content should be wiped in retribution, which is what these repeated AfD's feel like to me.  Once this information finds a suitable home, then yes, nuke it, but not before. Jclemens (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all. Whether it's the same editors involved in every AfD or not is irrelevant; the point is that the 40k WikiProject is gradually moving to the point where it contains more notable material than fancruft, and that this is a positive step for the WikiProject as well as the encyclopedia and not a negative one. I find it difficult to believe that none of the various well-established 40K wikis don't already cover these subjects in at least as much detail. As for the actual content, there are no third-party references and hence no notability outwith the game they feature in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect after Transwiki and protect if needed. In other news, I've transwikied to:
 * Land Raider
 * Powerfist
 * Dreadnought
 * Terminator
 * They're going to need alot of clean up. If anyone wants to help with transwiki of 40k, please see my talk page. --Falcorian (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge preserving content in the Wikipedia. That should be the default treatment; those who want to transwiki are on their own about that--not our concern. I think Protonk above explained well why these are not viable separate articles, and Khanaris as quoted by GoldDragon why the content should not be deleted. I accept their argument about the general process involved in these nominations. DGG (talk)
 * Why should "our default treatment" for an article composed entirely of reiteration of non-notable fictional material be to preserve its page history? It is non-notable fictional material. It doesn't belong here. Merging it is just going to make the mergee contain more inappropriate non-notable fictional material. Khanaris's argument is a cogent one, but it's counter to our current notability policy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The merger could just be a redirect. Protonk (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect various places (Land Raider to vehicles, Powerfist to weapons, etc). The real problem here is that although covered in a variety of places over the past 15+ years and being included in not just tabletop games but, video games, novels, etc the sourcing is predominantly primary or secondary source(but, I find it very hard to believe they haven't been covered somewhere reliable and 3rd party to support keeping some of the content). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. I agree with Jclemens. Axl (talk) 17:07, 30 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.