Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters


 * 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 all including their fair use logos, may be restored for transwiki on request. The "keep" opinion of Him and a dog was discounted for making no sense, and that of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles for being boilerplate.  Sandstein  18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

World Eaters

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

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the numerous chaos space marine legions that can used by players as part of game playing. All sources are the numerous codexes (instruction manuals) and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with other legions, none of these items have any real world notability, 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 as has been done in the past. The generic subject of Chaos Space Marines is covered in the article of the same name - so if AFD'd, all articles should redirect there. Allemandtando (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the rationale given above:


 * Keep all 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. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody had bought that vague misrepresentation of policy on any of the other AFDs you have cut and paste it into, so why are you expecting it to be useful here? --Allemandtando (talk) 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there's no coherent or compelling reason provided to delete this material. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies, not essays, are very compelling. And if you cannot assert with proof that these articles have real world verifiable notability, it is unconscionable to vote "keep" as it shows disrespect for Wikipedia's rules. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I cited the Five pillars. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...Yet you present no proof of any kind of verifiable references or real world notability, which should compel any honest person to conclude that the article is not notable, and therefore not fit for inclusion on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The clear interest among readers and editors suggests that the article is notable to people in the real world. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)But the five pillars page is a summary of policies or guidelines, not a policy or guideline itself. And it is also holistic; I could just as easily cite the five pillars as reason to delete the article in question. Which particular policy were you hoping to appeal to and houw should that policy compel us to ignore WP:N. Furthermore, how do we know what you mean in each article if your citation of the five pillars does not vary from article to article? Presumably if the deletion nomination is "[not] coherent or compelling", then shouldn't your response to it explain why you feel that way? Do you feel that the nomination is so self-evidently incoherent that explanation would be unnecessary? Protonk (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the widespread disputes over notability on its talk page, it's hard not to WP:Ignore All Rules until those issues are ironed out. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Then why have any guideline at all? why bother?  If we are just going to ignore it while it is being discussed, why bother discussing it?  And how does ignoring all rules about WPN make the nomination incoherent or not compelling, enough so that it only merits a copy/paste response? Protonk (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominations made in succession with copy/paste rationales are likely to get copy/paste responses. -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ever think of just being the bigger man in an issue like this? Or that maybe a closing admin would weigh a thoughtful, specific claim more than a copy/paste response?  Or that you've already been asked to stop making mass copy/paste responses and promised to not do so in the future? Protonk (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ever think about focusing on the actual article under discussion? I know there's reader interest and I believe per Editors matter that our editors and readers who come here for these articles are worth considering, i.e. if we humor them, then they like I and many others oftentimes will branch of to work on "more important" by however we define that articles.  Plus, in another sense I find such articles as this as demonstrative of comprehensive coverage of a particular subject and therefore better fulfillment of our goal of being a compendium of human knowledge.  Do I think the article is perfect or something?  Of course not, but I am not convinced that any problems it has will never be fixed.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll note that as a non answer to both questions. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all as above, irregardless of whether it was adhered to previously it is right and we can only hope it works this time. Deleting here serves no purpose, if all of these were to have to be on a single article it would be horirbly cluttered.--Him and a dog 21:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Transwikify per Verdatum - Let's see if I understand this. Warhammer 40,000 is a game put out by Games Workshop, a game that I for one have never heard of, and I am pretty up to date with games.  Then Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) are some kind of force within this game.  Chaos Space Marines are a kind of space marine.  World Eaters are a type of Chaos Space Marines.  All of this within the fictional universe of a game that I for one have never heard of.  Given that Wikipedia has recently deleted individual Naruto characters, out of an immensely more popular series, I think that having something which is a sub section of a sub section of a sub section of an obscure game should be deleted.  Besides which, most of those articles use a lot of original research, are written in a fictional tone and are just plain not encyclopaedic.  Perhaps they need to get a Warhammer 40,000 wiki and put them there. Myrrideon (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You've probably never heard of it because it started in england about 30-40 years ago and the popularity peaked in the early 1990's. It is a tabletop miniature game where a rather large proportion of effort went into assembling and painting an army. the interesting thing is, warhammer has returned to popularitiy as a computer game (Dawn of War and Warhammer:Online), allowing the possibility for the real source of inspiration for starcraft and warcraft to be lampooned as a slavish recreation of starcraft and warcraft. Full disclosure, I REALLY liked 40K when I was in high school. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG, the Naruto articles were actually used as a good example of fiction coverage. I feel way happier now (disclaimer: I worked on four featured lists, six good articles, one featured topic in the Naruto articles) =) Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 22:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Transwiki All as appropriate to the warhammer wikia. Not even the slightest establishment of real world signifigance.  If it's redundant, then redirect to Chaos Space Marines. -Verdatum (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there a warhammer wiki? If so, I'd say transwikify all. If not, encourage them to make one. Myrrideon (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In this day and age, there is a wiki for everything: http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/ -Verdatum (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Basically, these are thin veneers of setting over rulesets that amount to "Buy the latest guide and get a buff for (your team) for painting them a certain color!" Ugh at GW's marketing, and ugh at the amount of work that cleaning up this mess is going to take. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It has no place here unless it can be written about with third party reliable sources. TTN (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and delete all. No independent third party references are present to demonstrate notability.  --Craw-daddy | T | 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - There is already a Warhammer 40,000 wiki which covers this type of material, and these articles assert zero notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all WP:GNG (and proposed guidelines WP:TOYS and WP:FICT) state that notability cannot be inherited from the parent aqrticle. They also state the reliable, secondary sources must cover the topic for it to be notable. This will get very repetitive but it has to be said for each article. What also has to be said is that the fiction "sources" are not independent from games workshop (do an ISBN check on the books from "nottingham"). Each also fails WP:WAF badly, but that is an editorial issue. Protonk (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - no assertion of notability whatsoever from independent sources in any of these articles. If possible, transwiki the material, as it would look nice in a fanwiki. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki and Delete All per everyone else. If it has no notability, then to hell with it. The wikias will gladly take 'em all in. ZeroGiga (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN. Also, Britannica has articles on the same stuff we have too, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't also coiver it.  -- Happy editing!  Sincerely,  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Major aspects or figures or settings in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough  Conceivably merge to appropriate combination articles without loss of content. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. This is the sort of thing Wikipedia does best, and we should extend this kind of detailed coverage to more conventional topics.    DGG (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These are not major in any sense, and there's no sourced content. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All as insufficiently notable. These aspects of the game have not yet garnered non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 19:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All echoing the above: no notability, no possibility for effective sourcing to demonstrate encyclopedic value. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 15 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.