Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzeentch


 * 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. There is consensus below that the subject does not have non-trivial references to third-party reliable sources. If anyone wants to transwiki this or work on it in userspace then please contact me. Hut 8.5 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Tzeentch

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of the plot of the Warhammer series articles. It is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot move to keep an article based on being a verifiable topic with real world importance when it has established no notability, no real world importance, and thus no notability. It, in fact, the reason I am nominating it for deletion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Titular characters covered in multiple publications are verifiable and notable. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to prove notability, not hint at it, guess at it, suggest it might exist. That is what verifiability is all about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why I have proven it with reliable sources. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The reliable source you have provided is either a search index, which is not applicable. Or Liber Chaotica, Vol. 4: Tzeentch, which is reliable and non-trivial.  But published by Black Library, which is a subsidiary of games workshop and thus not independent.  Taemyr (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. This can be covered in one sentence in a parent article, we don't need this level of silliness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If so, then we should merge and redirect without deletion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 09:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay? We need to delete all of the words in this article. I don't care even in the slightest what happens to the article history. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The article history is helpful for RfAs and DRVs. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 09:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't imagine how, but whatever. It could be saved if you found some references to reliable third-party sources to back your claim of "notability to a real-world audience". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In RfA's when one sees that a candidate worked to improve an article under discussion even if it was deleted, then it makes challenging them as just voting in AfDs much harder. I found this on Google news and they are also discussed in books.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 09:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The latter book is an official artbook, lacking in factual claims of any sort. The former link is an in-passing mention in a press release. Both flunk the "third party" and "references" scratch tests. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The appearances in titular roles and different kinds of media persuade me nevertheless, i.e., , and all suggest that somehow or other this article's title is pervasive enough in popular culture to be in miniatures, in books, in music and in titular roles.  Plus, we do find the occasional reference elsewhere.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 09:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The first is an object, no factual claims to be found. The second is an artbook, no factual claims to be found. The second is a licensed role-playing game guide, not a source for factual articles in an encyclopedia article. The third is a song, which is again not a source of factual claims. The last is (wait for it) an excerpt of back-cover copy from a Warhammer sourcebook, on sale right now at a Games Workshop Store near you! I want to write articles. You have a receptive fan; I played 40K for five or six years. But I can see through bullshit "this word appears in passing a few times" and actual, material references we can use to write articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Primary sources (and affiliated "official" sourcebooks such as the ones Roi keeps spamming these AfDs with) can be used to verify content but not to establish notability. There are not enough reliable and independent sources to warrant this subject having its own article, and most of the content in unsalvageably in-universe. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. no notability - can be covered in the umbrella article chaos gods. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability is not asserted, so it has no need for an article. TTN (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tranwiki and delete. Notability isn't asserted in the article through the presence of independent third party references.  --Craw-daddy | T | 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete We cannot rest an article on the promise that an "encyclopedia" of the Warhammer fantasty world will contain significant description of this particular member of the pantheon. If, in the future, some editor secures that book and recreates the article, I'm sure it won't be a problem. As it stands we have the hint of sourcing for one portion of the article (as the article's focus is clearly on the 40K universe). Also, once WHO comes out, there will be some more 'secondary' sourcing for that universe, so the article may be recreated then. As it stands, in the here and now, this article fails WP:N. Protonk (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no assertion of notability via coverage by independent sources, which all the primary sources used in the article and noted in this discussion are not. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major  figures  in major games are suitable as subarticles.  I assume this game is important enough.   Conceivably merge to a combination article without loss of content, but the individual figure seems it might be suitable.. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. People should be able to look up the name of a significant character in any notable game or fiction and find some information. That's what we're here for, and nobody does it better. I dont see the point of trying to diminish coverage of the things we do best. There's other areas that need increased coverage, but deleting this wont help them. Stopping afds of this sort so people can write articles is what would help improve the more conventionally serious content.  DGG (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no; there are now dozens of MediaWiki installations dedicated to reiterating Games Workshop's intellectual property which "do it better" than Wikipedia, because Wikipedia has (at least notional) guidelines which discourage it. In this case you don't even appear to have personally established whether the game is notable enough (per your "assumption"), which basically means you're defending it for the sake of disrupting AfDs which use WP:FICTION as the primary rationale. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note, regarding WP:FICTION, as stated at the top of that page: "The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as 'policy'." Thus, no one needs to actually follow it.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct, we have to stick with what has consensus. Namely WP:NOTE and WP:NOT, the exceptions that WP:FICTION pushes for is moot. Taemyr (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep There are a variety of independent sources which discuss the Chaos gods. For example if I'm not mistaken, Tzeentch is discussed in the book David Anderegg's "Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them". That said, if people consider that insufficient, merging makes far more sense than deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That book has an excerpt from a GW book, as part of describing the obsessiveness of GW's fans. It doesn't actually have any factual claims about this character. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as insufficiently notable. This game character has not received non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn fancruft, as we used to be able to say back in the day when presented with the kind of stuff that was beyond the purview of an encyclopedia. Eusebeus (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:JNN and Do not call things cruft. -- Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:33, 16 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.