Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uriel Ventris


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Uriel Ventris

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

Disputed prod. No evidence or assertion of significant third-party coverage to establish notability, and Google search results quickly degenerate into Deviant Art and fan sites. Article is entirely plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the Ultramarines novels are an entertaining read, this article fails (as do so many other 40K articles) by not having any real-world context and relying on primary sources.  --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 14:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as the user who seconded the prod. This article makes no claim to notability beyond trying to inherit it from notability of the greater warhammer universe. Additonally no independent sources are provided. --T-rex 14:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is written entirely in-universe, and is nothing but plot summary. It might belong (probably in shortened form) in an article on the novel series, or characters in Warhammer 40000 novels, but there doesn't seem to be one. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Protonk (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has notablility per some of the things Le Grand Roi de Citrouille mentions to you (and pardon my coarse language) ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you read the talk page for the article, you would understand what I am trying to say. If you continue like this I will call in an admin. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude. Admins aren't parents.  The article doesn't cite independent sources and that is required per the general notability guideline.  Because no daughter guideline exists for fictional subjects, that's all we have.  Deleting it isn't defacement or wrong or anything.  And having LGRDC tell us that the article meets his criteria for inclusion doesn't mean that it meets the project criteria for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ...and, for "all the fucking time"s I or someone else has been told something, there's a pretty even track record for overly-in-universe plot summaries like these to be deleted. Perhpaps you'd be more content editing at the in-universe Warhammer wiki, wherever that is. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Call in an admin"? Who do you think has been closing the vast majority of these AfDs?  Answer: Admins. --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 16:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: Who would I discuss the overzealous deletionist attitude with? Answer is admins. If you wish to continue this deabte please go to my talk page where I'm more likely to see it.For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As Nemesis646 has expressed his intention to change his "vote" below I have struck this one. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article has no notablility per the many things said by many people in the many discussions of WH40K AfDs (and pardon my coarse language) ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you read all the other AfDs, or even just this one, you would understand what I am trying to say. If you continue like this I will have a cup of coffee.210.160.15.16 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Could the article be left for twelve hours max so I can transwiki a small part to Lexicanum? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The discussion will go for 5 days. And we don't share a license with Lexicanum .  Perhaps the Warhammer 40K wikia might be better, as noted in the project page for 40K. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Update I don't see a license declaration, but it doesn't look incompatible. Transwiki there if you want to, but it might be better on the wikia. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It still works OK for me. But thanks for recommending it, I will transwiki on both wikis as best I can. (and apologies). For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * for the wikia, Falcorian is an admin there, so he can use the Special:Import function (or whatever that is there). Protonk (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I've dealt with the appropriate transwiki. Please could you put a bit about Falcorian on my talk page so I can remember as I doubt I wll be paying much attention to this after it's been deleted. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but possibly merge into a new article for the Ultramarines characters, the preferred way of handling this. There is no reason presentd why this cannot be part of a combination article if it lacks sufficient importance for its own. DGG (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have two primary objections to doing that. One, these articles don't tend to accrete notability as sub-articles are merged into them.  0+0 is still 0.  Most of these articles have absolutely zero independent sources, so the combination of several article makes one article with no independent sources.  The second stems from the general length and detail issues that WH40K articles have without the issue of sub-article mergers.  The reference material produced by the company is...voluminous.  I know this isn't your thing, but send away for a copy of the "basic" codex (rulebook) through interlibrary loan.  In just that base guide, there is enough detail to populate hundreds of kilobytes (even when summarizing) and it is only one of many codexes.  The primacy of minutiae (in both the fictional works and the reference works, detail is very important, often more important than a bird's eye view) and sheer volume of coverage make it difficult to cut material down, even when editors with to shorten articles.  So a merger just converts a notability problem into a quality problem, and I'd prefer we not do that. Protonk (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete no third-party coverage, so no notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Revote- delete for the reasons given by others. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:30, 28 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.