Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Witch Hunters


 * 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. Black Kite 00:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Witch Hunters

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

Fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. No real-world context -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 12:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Then it should be edited to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines. 40k has a broad appeal so why delete it?El Jorge (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Editing it to be in line with our notability guidelines isn't possible, because independent third party sources for the material do not exist. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability is not and cannot be established by independent third party sources. The article consists purely of in-universe and gameguide material, and would remain that way as the subject lacks sufficient real-world notability for such material to have been written. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no real world notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the running consensus on 40K articles. Sourcing is not independent from Games workshop and a brigade level organizational component of a sub-faction in a table-top miniatures game doesn't really assert notability otherwise. Protonk (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I fail to see where exactly "real world notability" plays into this. I do agree that the article needs an extensive overhaul but deleting it seems to be rather contrarian. If people are interested in this article; why delete it based on the fact that it represents fiction? El Jorge (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:FICT - that says that, for an article to be notable it must: "contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.", have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that "reliable sources may cover such things as design, development, reception and cultural impact. This is real-world coverage because it describes the real-world aspects of the work." (not just "the work's fictional elements, such as the setting, characters, and story.") The article does not meet ANY of these criteria. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment the 'real world notability' statement I made was in order to ensure that it was clear this article should be judged on the merits of the general notability guideline. In other words, the subject of the article doesn't present a compelling reason for us to ignore all rules and cover it.  If, for example, Jedilofty were to nominate Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000), I would argue that the subject's status as a primary sub-faction in 40k meant that we should not delete it.  Here, the important guideline covering this topic is notability.  The subject isn't notable, as no third party sources cover it, so wikipedia probably shouldn't have an article on it.  I'm afraid that this is much more the failure of Games Workshop than of Wikipedia.  GW, as they profit from the publication of source material, guards their intellectual property jealously.  This means that very few works exist which cover the fictional elements of the game that are not produced by games workshop.  And things are probably going to get worse before they get better.  There are roughly 110 articles under the purview of the Warhammer 40K wikiProject and the eventual number is likely to be ~60.  We've lost a lot of members to the project because of these strings of deletions (I think the 40K project peaked at ~200 articles) and we need editors to help us build encyclopedic (Not exhaustive) coverage of these subject.  Will you help us? Protonk (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in some capacity per common sense. The phrase "witch hunters" is a legitimate search term as seen in a Google books search.  Thus, this page should not just be outright redlinked.  Plus, even as concerns Warhammer, the actual consensus based on article traffic and diversity of editors who edit those articles is that they are wikipedic regardless of snap shot in time AfDs.  If editors do not think the warhammer topic is notable, then they hould be bold and use the sources indicated to make an article on a topic that is and discuss these revisions on the article's talk page, but outright deletion seems the wrong approach.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 20:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are already a number of Witch hunter articles - this AfD is about the Witch Hunters article (note capitalisation).-- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then boldly redirect without deletion. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are no references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability of the article as it is currently written (i.e. the WH40k fictional army). There is, of course, no prejudice against an article about the non-fictional subject of "witch hunters" (suitably referenced using, say, those possibly relevant sources in the linked search given), but the fact that there might be another article about a notable subject unrelated to the focus of the current article (sharing only the name) should not derail the deletion of this article as written. --Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD is a total waste of time. We should be able to be bold and just redirect and at worst have a talk page discussion.  There's no desperate need to have to delete the edit history in this case.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We've tried that. ArbCom told us it was the wrong way of going about it. So we use AfD instead because it's the only practical means of getting a merge to go through without risking a six-month restriction on fictional-subject articles. Nifboy (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why Witch Hunters should be redlinked when there are historical Witch hunter articles that it unquestionably at worst should be redirected to. If this content is keepable it should be moved to Witch Hunters (Warhammer) even then at worst redirected somewhere as well.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but starting an AfD by stating an intent to merge basically invites a swarm of procedural "keep, afd is not for merging" votes that ignores the reasons why articles that should be WP:BOLDly merged (and would have been merged in the past) are coming here in the first place. Nifboy (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why we should have a merge discussion on the talk page of the article instead. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that isn't practical when there is any opposition at all because talk-page discussions can go on indefinitely (and, per ArbCom, depleting our finite patience is grounds for editing restrictions). It took the Poképrosal three years before going into effect, and that was with an initial consensus to merge. Nifboy (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a deadline. There's no pressing need to do much of anything on a volunteer project that intends to catalog human knowledge unless it is a hoax, libel, or copy vio.  We cannot afford to take our time with those three kinds of problematic articles, but in a case like this one, there's no urgency.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There may not be a deadline, but that doesn't mean we should sit on our laurels and do nothing while the quality of the encyclopedia suffers due to filibuster. In the US Senate, the way to break a filibuster is through forcing a decision to be made. And I would not like to see Wikipedia's efforts to improve quality compare disfavorably to the US Senate. Nifboy (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, I have yet to see any valid reason why Witch Hunters should be outright redlinked. The idea that people looking for information on the historic witch hunters would not type in "witch hunters" as a search phrase is not a valid one.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In, unusually, total agreement with Le Grand Roi. This discussion is, unusually for Warhammer 40K AfDs, incredibly stupid.  "dogs" redirects to "dog", "computers" redirects to "computer", "writers" redirects to "writer".  Why wouldn't "witch hunters" redirect to "witch hunter"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.160.15.16 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody has actually suggested that it shouldn't. A post-deletion redirect is perfectly fine. Arguing for one in an AfD is just a smokescreen. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all these are all in lower case. Capitals play an important part, which is why Witch Hunter (an article about an album) is a different article to witch hunter (a disambiguation page)!  By all means delete, THEN redirect; there is no need to keep the history of the article - in fact leaving the history would invite reversion to an article with no reliable sources or real-world context. --  JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   —--Craw-daddy &#124; T &#124; 00:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with very little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As indicated above, there is real world informatin on the concept of witch hunters and thus this article should not be outright redlinked. Also, WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think you don't understand what JNN means.  Pagra shtak  17:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine any logical reason why anyone would NOT argue that at worst Witch Hunters should be redirected to Witch hunter and if people believe the Warhammer content to be worthwhile that wouldn't be in an article under Witch Hunters (Warhammer) we should not need an AfD to do this. It should be obvious that the real world notability topic would be a redirect to Witch hunter and then if people wanted to have an AfD over Witch Hunters (Warhammer), that is another story.  As far as "jnn" goes.  Given the RfC on notability for which many of the proposals are fairly even divided among supports and opposes, it is clear that the community just does not have a consensus on notability, i.e. it is subjective and when I see "non-notable" used by someone who has a "mission" to delete, it makes use of notability seem that much more nothing more than subjective opinion, i.e. a ten dollar way of saying "I don't like it."  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have issues with that mission, then fine—take that up with him (on his talk page, preferably). JNN says that one shouldn't merely state "not notable", but should explain why the subject is not notable. Doctorfluffy has done this. His reason for why he considers this subject not notable is a "[l]ack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject". Doctorfluffy is clearly not in violation of JNN here. It's too bad that you are disregarding an argument based on the speaker and not the argument itself.  Pagra shtak  18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the "argument" when used as part of a "mission" and when there simply is no logical reason why anyone would not at worst argue to redirect the page as without any doubt people are indeed realistically likely to search for witch hunters at least in the unquestionably verifiable historic context is one where I am not going to be naive about the arguer's actual intentions or honesty. I could see an argument to move this information to Witch Hunters (Warhammer) and maybe even have a deletion discussion on that as reasonable.  I can not see any argument that does not at least say, "But hey, there have been real world historic witch hunters who have served as the focus of scholarly studies, so we at least need to redirect this page to Witch hunt or Witch hunting.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So create a redirect after the article is deleted then. It's simple enough. Why is it the "wrong approach", as you put it, to have an AFD for this article, but an AFD for the exact same content at another page title would be "reasonable"?  Pagra shtak  13:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because we can be bold and redirect when necessary and truth be told, I would rather Wikipedia be a compendium of topics of debatable notability than a compendium of AfDs. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this article about a subject nobody has seen fit to write third-party reliable sources about. Desist in disrupting AFD with the same old "We could put something completely unrelated here, so we cannot delete this unreferenced junk!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this nomination is disruptive as there's no reason why a bold redirect couldn't have taken place instead. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, I'm talking about you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You can lie about me all you want, but if you would rather do that than constructively discuss how best to cover the term "witch hunters", I guess that's your perogative, but why not step back from your stated dislike of me and actually consider why at worst a redirect of Witch Hunters as a legitimate search term for Witch hunter or Witch hunt would not be appropriate. Those topics already exist and to suggest other than that hey regardless of the notability of the current content of the article people might seriously search for the verifiable historical subject and thus at the very least the article is redirectable in that capacity just to yet again lob inaccurate and bad faith accusations against me defies understanding.  You know, I don't start off arguments in these discussions accusing people of things...  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You want to keep this article because something completely unrelated can be put here. That isn't in any sense a misrepresentation of your stated goal. We don't do pure wiki deletion for reasons that have been explained to you, we don't keep unrelated article histories without good reason and this has been pointed out to you, and bringing up wholly unrelated subjects in AFDs is disruptive and this has been pointed out to you. Most of all, you haven't made any case that this is a special exception to any of those three general states; instead, you're simply campaigning for each of them, in Every. Single. AFD. If you want to put a redirect (or any other content unrelated to this WH40K subfaction) here, feel free to go ahead and do that after the AFD. Beyond that, keep the discussion on topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, more disruptive misrepresentation of my arguments. I am arguing that the acceptable spinoff content should be moved to Witch Hunters (Warhammer) and that Witch Hunters should be redirected to either Witch hunt or Witch hunting.  I am NOT arguing that an all new article be written over the existing content as such articles already exist.  As far as edit histories go, I am not persuaded that unless there's a copy vio or libel in them, it's any big deal keeping them.  But in any case, I actually could understand arguments of "delete, but redirect", but omitting the "but redirect" just does not make sense and that is where I most take issue here, i.e. that this a deletion discussion and I am not convinced that the phrase "witch hunters" must be redlinked altogether.  Making such suggestions is on topic, because we are not restricted to black and white, yes or no, vote style arguments.  We consider merges, we consider redirects, we conisder renames, etc.   Put simply, we consider how best to move ahead and in this case I think that the most logical and legitimate search for the phrase "witch hunters" is in the real world historical context and as such I am recommending that it be redirected.  I see no pressing need to delete the edit history and as I believe that spinoff articles are acceptable this content can be moved elsewhere, but I'm no expert on Warhammer (I am a historian by contrast) and have no strong opinion one way or the other if an article called Witch Hunters (Warhammer) is kept, but I do just want to be sure that there is no opposition to appropriately enough redirecting Witch Hunters to one of the historic articles as suggested.  I am making this suggestion as a means of being helpful and to be sure that we our considering all possibilities here and to add something original to the discussion.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You're arguing that this title be about a subject completely unrelated to what it is about now. Whether you are persuaded that the history should be deleted merits one comment. "We should redirect this instead of deleting it" repeated over and over and over in the same single AFD is disruptive badgering. Currently, nobody has objected to redirecting this after it's deleted, and your opinion is clear. Now hush unless you have some new proposal, revelation, or other new insight. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems it has only proprietary linkage and no citations from independent sources. Let the discussion go the full term. If no such citation is added, delete, then create Witch hunter redirect to Witch hunter dab page; if sourcing arrives in time, reaname article per Le Grand Roi and create the redirect anyway. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no real-world notability. More suitable to a specialist wiki, feel free to transwiki there. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Witch hunters has obvious real world notability at least in the context of a redirect as discussed above. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 21:54, 6 September 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.