Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons of the Imperium (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 keeps predominantly stem from opinions that do not appear to be supported by policy, guideline or any established precedent/ consensus. There is also clearly some confusion over the applicability of primary sources. PS can not be used to establish N but can be used to V non-controversial information in an article on an otherwise notable subject. In the final analysis, I determined that the nom/deletes presented sound arguments that were well-supported by policy/guidelines.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)

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

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter. Yes, the Imperium 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 deleted. Allemandtando (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks to deletionpedia I found all the information I was looking for about the "stub pistol" and the "shotgun". This article was the only universal source of information on weapons on the whole wh40k background (merging for example info from Dark Heresy). Sergio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.7.17.82 (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are is a long list of sources and references, how is it that you can simply shrug every single one of them as non-reliable/notable? There is a discussion going on the page; the article requires rewriting and not deletion. Additionally, I am aware that you know full well that a few editors have been forced by your hand transwikify all wh40k articles this weekend. They only ask they you cease in deleting the articles until then. Yet you are continuously removing lines from various articles despite the agreement, in direct contempt of the efforts of said editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You may be aware that these articles have been tagged for cleanup and sourcing for months, literally. Also, it takes like 50 seconds to transwiki an article and not "all 40k articles" are under the threat of deletion. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Just needs fixing, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.62.65 (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you propse fixing it then? If you could find some independent references to demonstrate the notability of these items, then please add them to the article in question.  Attacking the nominator does you no favors here as the deletion rationale follows WP policy.  --Craw-daddy | T | 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominator seems to have some sort of burr under his blanket about the 40K articles. L0b0t (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm compelled to repeat myself. If you are going to assume bad faith, then don't do so in identical fashion across all of the AfD's brought up by this nominator.  If you have a reason the nomination should end in keep (or better yet, a source), please present that.  It does not help to comment on the nominator. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Primary sources are generally acceptable for fictional works. Given the popularity and scope of Warhammer universe, this should be kept, albeit with appropriate cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That isn't supported by any policy (or proposed policy) for notability concerning fiction or toys. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Primary sources can be used to verify non-controversial content in an article on a fictional topic, but it does not establish notability. This content goes in a game guide or a fansite, not an encyclopedia. -Verdatum (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * transwiki Wikipedia is not a game guide. Anon above mentions an effort to transwiki similar page. -Verdatum (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete. The sources for this article are entirely primary, i.e. nothing indicates notability of these weapons independent of Games Workshop publications.  --Craw-daddy | T | 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Transwiki. There's a huge debate going on at WP:40K. I don't think the article should be deleted, it's huge and there's lots of info. --Leedeth (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ok - it's huge and there is lots of information - which bits are notable or relevent in accordance with our notablity policies or our sourcing policies or the MOS. --Allemandtando (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

*Keep Bad faith nom. L0b0t (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Whoops, thanks for spotting that Neil. Nom. has AfD'd so many articles at the same time but not bothereed to lump them together it's hard to keep track. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sources are primary and will likely remain that way indefinitely. Dedicated in-universe wikis which aren't as concerned with the accumulation of material which is tantamount to copyright / trademark violation are a much better place for this; there are plenty of 40k wikis with this level of detail already. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote. Neıl 龱  13:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No need for transwiki, this is already on the Warhammer Wikia site.  The article is comprised wholly of cruft from primary sources. Neıl  龱  13:46, 3 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. "Cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion.  Sincerely, -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A word I don't use in the nomination - being sore because your cruft AFD is going down in flames shouldn't affect how you !vote on other AFDs. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Be sure to read all of the posts in these discussions. You will notice the post above mine does in fact use the word "cruft."  As for the MfD, it has actually served quite a useful purpose...  -- Happy Independence Day!   Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As a note (in case people haven't seen the other 40K nom's), White Dwarf (magazine) is not independent from Games workshop (this is clear from the references), neither are the manuals for play. Apart from those two sources, I can't find independent claims of notability of the subject of this particular article.  It doesn't matter if there are a hundred sources in this article, if they are all from the game manufacturer, it isn't enough.  Honestly one independent, reliable source discussion the weapons of the imperium would be enough for me to reverse my stance on this. Protonk (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability asserted through coverage by independent sources. As it stands, the article is a textbook failure of WP:WAF, and the whole article is excessive weight on the topic. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 00:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Once in awhile it makes sense to make an exception for a borderline notability issue (WP:N is a guideline, repeat after me). This article is well written and extensively sourced (even if with few independent sources, as has been pointed out). Let it stay, and ask that editor to help out on some other articles as well. Avruch 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Few? it has *none*. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, plenty of references to verify the content and confirm some degree of notability, and it's far too much info to merge anywhere. Everyking (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * how is "some degree of notability" confirmed when the article doesn't have a single 3rd party source and none seem to exist? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On closer examination, I see you are correct, they don't appear to be third-party sources. However, Wikipedia aims for comprehensive coverage of notable subjects and this article is necessary for broader comprehensive coverage of Warhammer. Independent notability of the weapons would make the case stronger, but I don't consider it necessary to justify the content. Everyking (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what is notable about those weapons in the game and why explanations of how to construct fictional bullets is needed for comprehensive coverage? In all fictional areas such as video games - such lists have been removed? why do you think this is important to this "broad coverage"? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject - the sources listed aren't independent. PhilKnight (talk) 16:54, 9 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.