Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ork (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 to Warhammer 40,000. Randykitty (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Ork (Warhammer 40,000)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

And since I just listed WHF Orcs and Goblins, here's the WH40K version. It's hard to say which is worse - this one is just a plot summary+WP:NOTAGUIDE unreferenced summary of game mechanics, with next to no footnotes throughout the text, and most problematic, with zero indication of notability of the subject covered. Even if the topic were to be shown notable (my before shows a ton of trivial mentions, but it is a popular faction in a popular gaming universe...), WP:TNT should apply to this mess - it's doubtful anything would be rescuable here outside categories, infobox and maybe a sentence or two in the lead anyway. WP:ATD in mind, I suggest redirecting this pure WP:FANCRUFT to Warhammer_40,000, with no prejudice to it being recreated as a properly referenced article that demonstrates the notability of the subject. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy,  and Games. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mika Loponen discusses orcs/orks with a specific focus on, among other examples, Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 in his PhD dissertation The Semiospheres of Prejudice in the Fantastic Arts : The Inherited Racism of Irrealia and Their Translation. I've added references. I'm sure there's plenty to do, maybe including cutting content, but I think the article can be kept. /Julle (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DISSERTATION allows us to use PhD theses, although they are not considered great sources (published papers/books are superior). I'll agree there is some SIGCOV content there (p.71-74, brief note on p. 86), although it is relevant both wo WH40K and WHF orcs (orks). There's a bit about goblins on p.110. Still, it's just one source (GNG requires multiple sources, let's say, two at minimum), and the terrible shape of the current article requires IMHO starting from scratch. I'd love to see someone use this source for something useful here, but what is there to rescue from the current mess? For now I'd say the source you found would be great addition to the Warhammer's article section on the orks faction. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Warhammer 40,000: While there might be some potential sources, it would be very useful to destroy this article and start over. In any case, this article violates our policies regarding original research and verifiability. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 22:36, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Julle above, or merge to Warhammer 40,000. BOZ (talk) 12:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Warhammer 40,000: Adding Dr. Loponen's thesis was a valiant effort, but the page is still almost entirely unsourced, and reads more like a fandom wiki than Wikipedia. It's also not clear to me - it may be to a seasoned player - how much of the page is reproduced from official Games Workshop material. Etherjammer (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. Serratra (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2023 (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.