Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultramarines


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarines

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

No citations to reliable sources to establish real-world notability, and is entirely plot summary and original research. --EEMIV (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: Transwikied to Ultramarines --Falcorian (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Space Marines either before or after deletion. Article can not meet 3rd party sources. --Falcorian (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cut out all the OR and keep. Sufficient sources to allow us to have a reliable stub pointing the reader to Space marines for further. I hate such cruft, but I don't have to read it.--Troikoalogo (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing distinguishes the ultramarines from every other space marine chapter. Deletion arguments that applied there apply here.  On a related note, we should probably try just redirecting the articles to the space marines one and see if the IP attention is still sufficient to revert it. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alemantando redirected the article; IPs from whatever Warhammer board have been undoing the redirects when I and other editors restore them. I brought the AfD because of persistent IP reversion of a redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, good deal. Protonk (talk) 21:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * comment Legion of the Damned‎, Crimson Fists‎ and the previously deleted chapters redirected to Space marines. I didn't redirect the "chapters" that aren't really chapters: Grey Knights, Black Templars, etc.  So we'll see what happens this time. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no independent sources to establish notability yadda yadda. This is really procedural, see Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) for rationale (this one was skipped because it had been previously redirected). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete—the same problems that resulted in the deletions at Articles for deletion/Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000) apply to this article as well.  Pagra shtak  19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (titular topics are notable) or merge and redirect without deletion as there is no need for the edit history to be removed and if we are going with the precedent of the other AfDs that were redirected, then again, we do not need a deletion discussion to do that. By the way, Warhammer is not the only use of this term per Google News and Google books, so perhaps this article should be renamed Ultramarines (Warhammer 40,000) and then merged and redirected and Ultramarines be either a disambugation page or one that covers the term as used in science.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. The French word (="overseas") is not relevant in the English Wikipedia, and the pigments ("the term as it is used in science") are covered in Ultramarine. Deor (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Plurals still make for legitimate search terms. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, unless actual evidence of notability in independent reliable sources can be provided, which I highly doubt. Terraxos (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, sources about something called ultramarines exist that suggest notability, i.e. article should not be redlinked. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 07:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why you may create a redirect to the dab page if the article is deleted.  Pagra shtak  04:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why if we do that deleting the page would also be necessary. We can have a protected redirect that still allows for the edit history (useful for us non-admins when looking at RfAs) to remain public.  Barring there's something libelous in the edit-history, we would have something to gain from doing an undeleted edit history redirect, but I don't really see any benefit from a deleted edit history redirect.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a discussion for another page. I'm just pointing out that your argument (you suggest we shouldn't delete, because this term shouldn't be a red link) is easily solved by creating a redirect.  Pagra shtak  04:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is to keep the content as it is titular in nature and therefore a legitimate search term, but move to Ultramarines (Warhammer 40,000) and redirect Ultramarines to Ultramarine. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 04:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep For all of the previously mentioned reasons. I found the article pertinent and useful while looking for information on the subject matter (information referring to the novels and differences between this and Starcraft). Clogar (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy | T | 08:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. And clean-up, even in-universe game-related articles can be treated encyclopedicly. Seems to have references but now needs wikifying and context that isn't OR. Banj e  b oi   12:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does have references, as it has for quite a while now—the issue here is if independent, secondary sources can be found. You'll notice that all the references in the article are associated with the subject. According to our notability guideline, an article must have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Without such sources, we do not have the raw material necessary to create an encyclopedic treatment of this subject.  Pagra shtak  13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * delete no reputable evidence of real-world notability from critical sources. Mukadderat (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   — Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * '''Keep. Do the various codexes not count as sources or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.192.18 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability requires sources that are independent of the subject. The codexes are obviously not.  Pagra shtak  17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been removed from the list of Science-related deletion discussions since it is entirely fictional.  Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply, it was placed there because there is discussion above to redirect Ultramarines to Ultramarine a science based article and it would be worthwhile hearing from chemistry wikipedians as to whether or not they agree with such a redirect. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody would object to a redirect from a plural. That doesn't seem to me to be something that you'd need an expert opinion on. But if you think this listing will be useful, I won't remove it again. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added it just to get sense if anyone would oppose the redirect idea. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As a wikichemist, I would strongly oppose any redirect to Ultramarine, which is a perfectly good article about something else. If it's not deleted, why not move to Ultramarines (Fantasy soldiers) or something more appropriate, and link from [[Ultramarines] to there.
 * Delete as there are no references independent of Games Workshop and its affiliates/official licenses to demonstrate notability. For what it's worth, though the Ultramarines are the train-spotters of WH40K and have been around since the beginning, even the Google Scholar, News, and Book links in the article Rescue template don't seem to reveal any independent references.  --Craw-daddy | T | 21:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They are sufficient enough for at worst a merge/redirect without deletion as it is verifiable and notable to those wikipedians working on and reading the article. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no critical coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic to assert notability. As it stands, the article is excessive in-universe plot summary. sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Source search update: I just noticed that DC comics also uses "ultramarines" per such secondary sources as this.  Thus, yet another possibility is to have a disambugation page on Ultramarines that includes the use of the term in fiction (Warhammer and DC) and in science (Ultramarine).  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have a dab page, at Ultramarine (disambiguation). Please discuss this there instead.  Pagra shtak  01:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. I didn't mean "Link to this AFD on the dab talk page with no explanation", I meant "Please restrict your discussion here to whether this article should be deleted and don't discuss the particulars of what should/should not occur on a completely separate page."  Pagra shtak  02:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   — Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -This article asserts no notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These look like reliable sources: and .  Titular topics of multiple books are notable.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 03:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No they aren't unless they contain information of the type required to demonstrate notability, and you have no idea what's in those books. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As they are titular in nature and are more than just one book, that alone demonstrates notability. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 05:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the first one is published by Games Workshop (the same company that manufactures WH40K) and the second is published by Black Library, a subsidiary of Games Workshop. In other words, neither one is independent of Games Workshop, and hence don't help to demonstrate notability.  --Craw-daddy | T | 06:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Then, based on those publishers I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the information they contain concerning that particular aspect of the article. As they are titles, surely somewhere, perhaps in a publication without an online archive, there would be reviews of these books that could provide out of universe context.  But in any event, I am still not seeing any pressing need to do some kind of delete that also eliminates the edit history.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 06:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not inherited, so even if reviews of those books were to be found that wouldn't establish the notability of the Space Marine Chapter here. It is the belief of various members of the community (some of whom, like myself, were active in the 40K domain long prior to these AfDs) that it is exceedingly unlikely that sources matching the encyclopedia's criteria for notability will be found for this subject. Whether it matches your criteria for notability isn't really relevant, given that it has been established that your threshold for notability is considerably lower than that of the rest of the community. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Grand Roi, but we can't accept that there are "surely somewhere, perhaps" sources. If third-party sources cannot be found, we shouldn't have an article on it—it's that simple.  Pagra shtak  13:13, 7 August 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.