Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum (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.  Sandstein  16:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Officio Assassinorum
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per the myriad reasons presented in previous discussion, i.e. articles asserts notability for a real-world audience and has merely sumountable, i.e. fixable issues. If a summary exists elsewhere, then we would redirect to that summary at worst.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the first AfD was voided by the closing admin on request because the nominator was banned blocked as a sock (basically a recreated account in order to avoid an indef block). the article has not changed in between.  Criticism raised in the first AfD is just as valid today.  This article still uses only source material produced by Games Workshop (White Dwarf (magazine), the codexes and the fiction are all published by games workshop).  The article covers a fictional agency of a faction in a miniatures game--this faction is mentioned in the codexes but otherwise is not an element of the game (one may play as the imperium without knowing who they are).  None of the sources support notability outside this fictional universe and no secondary sources exist to assert notability per WP:GNG.  As an editorial manner, the article needs to be rewritten to satisfy WP:WAF. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Basically, what Protonk said, only replacing "faction" with "subfaction." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete as there are no sources independent of Games Workshop (and it's officially licensed subsidiaries, publishers, etc) to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 08:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) - a cut down list of the temples ought to be there at least. the wub "?!"  08:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  08:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Excessively reliant on primary sources, real-world notability is nonexistent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely agree with nom and Protonk's excellent, well-reasoned argument. I have nothing to add beyond the numerous issues they have already stated. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN and WP:PERNOM are unsufficient reason for deletion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet PERNOM makes a suitable keep statement? Why the double standard?  Pagra shtak  19:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleting is a far more serious matter as it can undo hours of volunteer work and potentially insult those who did that work. I hope that anyone who supports per me also elaborates on their reasons as well, but it would be impolite to say that as a reply to them.  I try to only make these posts to those who never argue to keep; those who I see as balanced  or who provide hard to argue with reasons for deletion, are much less likely to ge a reply pointing them to an essay or policy.  But those who just go down the list of AfDs saying "per nom" or "nnotable" delete in rapid fire fashion should be addressed.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because evidently taking the time to nominate inappropriate articles for AfD is a process which requires zero effort on behalf of the editors involved, and therefore nobody will be insulted when someone works his or her way through the whole front page of AfD copy-pasting Keep comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms about nominating inappropriate articles, but articles that can be merged and redirected are not inappropriate and you don't find copy-and paste delete "arguments" insulting? -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No: as an adult, I got over having my own contributions removed rather quickly. In many cases an article is evidently irredeemable without much thought (have a look at some of WikiProject Football's non-notable AfDs to see how easy it can be), as is the case here. People who disagree tend to be the kind of people who disagree with article deletion altogether, which is a valid viewpoint but not one which (thankfully) has much weight on current debates. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then editors, as adults, should not feel insulted when others argue to keep articles they want deleted. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have replied to something other than the comment immediately above you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The standard response to your work argument is located at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Allen3 talk 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence that the independent third-party sources needed for creation of a neutral and verifiable article exist. --Allen3 talk 20:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability through non-trivial coverage from reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT as well. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 00:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article contains no reliable secondary sources, and I have seen no evidence of such. Without reliable secondary sources as required by Notability, we simply do not have the materials to create an article that satisfies Neutral point of view and Verifiability. The argument holds, whether spoken by a block evader or established editor.  Pagra shtak  20:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No third party source coverage. Relys mainly on first part. Undeath (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks citations to multiple third-party sources offering significant coverage, i.e. fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:FICT. Content is entirely in-universe plot summary, failing to offer an encyclopedic treatment (WP:NOT, WP:WAF). --EEMIV (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all in-universe articles regarding Warhammer 40,000 - This includes all articles other than the main article dedicated to the game. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note ALLORNOTHING. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agamemnon2's comment has nothing to do with WP:ALLORNOTHING. If he'd said, "If we delete this we must delete all others" or "we deleted X so this should go, too" then the "if X then Y" thinking of all-or-nothing would apply. However, the comment "in-universe Warhammer articles should be deleted" is outside the blanket. --EEMIV (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, WP:ALLORNOTHING has no bearing. Saying all in-universe articles without secondary sources should be deleted isn't asserting that the y all have to go if this one does, it is saying they all should go for the same reasons as this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Reliable secondary sources seem not to exist to exert enough notability for a seperate article. Is entirely in-universe with primary sources. this should be in a specialist Warhammer wikia, not here.Yobmod (talk) 11:53, 25 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.