Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (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 delete; the "keep" comments are dismissive of applicable policy and guidelines. Content available for transwikiing on request. Sandstein 21:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Weapons, equipment and vehicles of the Craftworld Eldar (Warhammer 40,000)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter. Yes, the Eldar faction is probably notable; however, a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should either be deleted or merged back to the Eldar article from whence it came. Haemo 19:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 19:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to fail WP:IINFO. If there is an appropriate W40K wiki or site with a compatible license feel free to transwiki it there, or drop a line on my talk page if it's already deleted and I'll provide the content for you. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Transwiki if possible. A list of all the weapons is not needed on Wikipedia, but could exist on another wiki.  Captain   panda  03:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions.   WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 has also been notified. —-- saberwyn 04:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. I think I should point out that this article is very notable to those of us who are learning about Warhammer 40k. There may not be many of us, but we do exist. However, I must admit that the fact that it is a useful article for some people is not necessarily enough to make it satisfy Wikipedia notability requirements. There is a good Warhammer 40k wiki that this article might help: here. It would have to be merged with existing pages there. -- Lilwik 07:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as this fails WP:NOT. The only things missing from list (except the kitchen sink and Uncle Tom Cobley's grey mare) are reliable secondary sources to demonstrate the real-world notability of this fictional equipment. --Gavin Collins 11:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. I agree that this list had no real place on wikipedia itsself, but i would deem it a waste to delete an article that contained this amount of work.I would vote to transwiki it to the 40k project that has been noted above. -- Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki per Excirial.   jj137  ( Talk ) 01:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, my heart says Keep. The fact that you could easily find detailed information like this was... is one of the things that drew me to Wikipedia in the first place. I know that some of the higher-up are getting to focused on this whole "Respectable Source" idea, and I honestly feel that while it's a worthy goal, they're just going about it wrong(If you want to be a source of anything, IMO, you have to go beyond "stuff somebody else wrote in a book somewhere"). But that's neither here nor there.  My point is that the information in this article is notable, and even important, for just about everybody who would go looking for its parent article. Too much so to just banish it into the ether, so to speak. Beyond that, I believe it's useful for displaying the wide variety of weapons devised in the breadth of Science Fiction. I would also suggest Merging it with the similar and parent articles. SAMAS 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an attractive sentiment, but "useful to a select group of people" is not what our notability guidelines are all about. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, and while these may be of some conceivable importance to people who play Warhammer, they have no external notability.  In fact, for the most part this article would be totally incomprehensible to a reader who was not already familiar with the subject under discussion.  As WikiProject Videogames has argued, quite compellingly, this is not acceptable for an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. Indeed, this is why we have specific fan Wikis &mdash; where people can catalog all of the in-depth material on a given game, movie, or what have you without worrying whether or not it's accessible to a general reader, or whether it meets our standards for notability.  As you can see, the Transwiki sentiment is strong, on this very basis.  --Haemo 17:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I might have agreed, but let's face it: "Notability" is not only subjective, but all over the place. We're arguing over deleting or transwiking this article, yet the Montreal Screwjob was a featured article just a week or so ago.  It seems around here, something is notable until someone complains that it isn't. SAMAS 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Montreal Screwjob has a large number of reliable sources attesting to its notability. This article has none; we're not discussing some personal, subjective, concept of notability here; we're looking at Wikipedia's guidelines.  --Haemo 18:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's right, we must delete or merge this trivial article that's only useful to a few thousand people in order to save electrons. Remember, save those electrons, they're more important than you think —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. If there's a page for the Necrons, Space Marines, and God-knows-what, there should be one for the Eldar as well. I see no point in deleting this article in the first place. Frostmourne 16 06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that other stuff exists is not a compelling reason to keep this page, and your reasoning does not address the rationale given against keep; specifically, that this subject fails our notability guidelines.  --Haemo 19:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any given article on Wikipedia is only notable to a select group of people; no matter how much importance they may hold historically, politically, to pop culture, or to anything else, there are vast swaths of people who hold no interest whatsoever in the Battle of Shiloh, Star Trek, the Republican Party, the year 1956, and any other topic you may care to name.  Deleting articles because they're only notable to some people is pointless and would ultimately lead to the deletion of the entire encyclopedia.  Rogue 9 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the rationale for deletion; the reasoning is that it cites no reliable sources which attest to any real-world notability. The problem is not that the number of people interested in the subject is small, but that we cannot find or source any claims of notability as required by guidelines &mdash; because, as I have explained, it's not sourcable in such a manner.
 * delete It's more like a walkthrough, it's not like a lot of the articles here. It was written entirely to act as a in-game reference or walkthrough. --businessman332211 14:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that is what it looks like, but I suppose bold editing could fix that problem. It could be transformed into an overview of the place on the science fiction spectrum that the Eldar occupy, by describing the common features of their weapons and vehicles rather than listing every single item by name and characteristics. However, doing that by distilling the content of the current article would make this article short enough that it should be merged into the main Eldar article. In order to make this article worth while, new content would have to be added that connects the Eldar weapons and vehicles to similar science fiction races in other games and media. If anyone knows of any sources that discuss such things so we can do that without OR, then please come forward. Otherwise, I doubt that it is possible to save this article by any means other than transwiki. -- Lilwik 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I reckon you could probably write a tight, concise article about "Technology of Warhammer 40k" which could be appropriately sourced &mdash; but the current set of forked and duplicated pages that basically just quote the flavor text for innumerable codexes and game manuals is not going to do the job. --Haemo 20:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. I think all the various Warhammer 40k equipment lists should probably be brutally merged into a single article that gives an overview of what is possible in that the science fiction setting. A lot has been written on Warhammer 40k in general, so I suppose we could find some nonfiction material discussing Warhammer 40k science in one way or another, at least comparing it to other games or fiction. It should get easier when the topic of the article gets less specific. -- Lilwik 21:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. I think all the various Warhammer 40k equipment lists should probably be brutally merged into a single article that gives an overview of what is possible in that the science fiction setting. A lot has been written on Warhammer 40k in general, so I suppose we could find some nonfiction material discussing Warhammer 40k science in one way or another, at least comparing it to other games or fiction. It should get easier when the topic of the article gets less specific. -- Lilwik 21:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. If there is any useful content, merge to Eldar. Can't pass WP:V, as far as I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No more bongos (talk • contribs) 21:06, 12 November 2007 (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.