Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technology of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

Technology of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

Non-notable aspect of a fictional universe. Written entirely in a in-universe style and tagged as such since 2007. No coverage (let alone substantial coverage) of this subject in third-party sources (i.e., works not published by the game's publisher) is either cited or likely. Sandstein 20:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect into a suitable article. These should be the default ways to deal with these, and it does not take AfD. DGG (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too random, too detailed, too in-universe. No article would benefit from this content, and it can't stand on its own. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge content I have found two sources (one better than the other) that could attest to the notability of this article, and besides, I am busy rewriting it still. Furthermore, though this won't make a difference to the lot who want to see so many articles deleted, tau technology is notable as the first set that focuses almost entirely on ranged combat. I won't disagree that from section 3 onward it is a terrible article, but the first two sections are not overly detailed or in-universe. If you really believe that it is, say why on the talk page, so I can make the edit, or just do it yourself.Additionally, at one point for about two months, the in-universe tag did not cover the entire article, only section 3 (which I left up because I hadn't rewritten it yet, not as an endorsement of its quality). This was in july/august, I think, of 2008. After the reasons for returning it to the top were stated, and remedies suggested, those remedies were enacted. Take a look at the talk page. At the very least, let me move this to a workpage so I can continue refining it, hopefully to a point where it has the citations for notability. Tealwisp (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

amendment to previous statement The sources are on the 40k wikiproject talk page. Tealwisp (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fansite. This is the site of a (chain of?) game store. Neither of those are reliable sources for anything. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are meant to establish notability, and they are third parties, the point being that there are is coverage. I said earlier (though ambiguously) that the second source was not very good, but the first one hadn't struck me as a fan site, but rather a site with a section that was a fansite. Still, I see no problem in allowing me to move this to a workpage while I search for sources to establish notability. Perhaps then you guys would be more inclined to suggest fixes on a talk page as opposed to going straight for a PROD. It's worth mentioning, though, that the Tau (in fact, the entire 40k universe) is gaining notability through the new PC game Dawn of War. Obviously, I'm not suggesting that as a source, though it does say a little, but the notability comes from the fact that there are a lot of professional reviews for the game. What are your objections to that (you know you have something)? Tealwisp (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not reliable sources of commentary. Coverage on fansites isn't particularly useful; WP:RS has more on that.

The fact that you're saying "It's related to a notable game, therefore it is notable" suggests that you're conflating "notable" with "important," as opposed to its specific meaning of "the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources." There are lots of reviews of the game, but few to no commentary on a completely separate game that that video game is loosely based upon. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could go on with this (Han Solo is notable only for Star Wars, or something of the like), but we can both agree that this is not the place. If you want to continue, let me know on my talk page, and we'll "duke it out" on the WP:NOTE talk page. Tealwisp (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no 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) 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, Doctorfluffy has not read the article and is putting out the usual reasons for deletion. There isn't even a plot to summarize, and there is real-world information. There is a section to describe each battlesuit model. Plus, I was trying to rewrite the article to correct the in-universe problem. Note the difference between the first two sections and section 3. Tealwisp (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recommending that Tealwisp continues working on the article on whichever of the various 40K wikis it is transwikied to. The material is of limited real-world notability and primarily consists of gameguide or in-universe detail. It is unlikely that reliable sources would be found that provided a real-world angle on the subject beyond that which could be covered within the main Tau article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would prefer that tealwisp stay here, rather than go to the 40k wikia or the other 40k wiki. It is unlikely that reliable sources will be foudn for this article or (frankly) for the Tau article, but I'm not willing to support a nomination for the parent article. I would prefer that members of the 40K project helped to improve the core articles, but I can't force anyone to do anything. either way, that is neither here nor there. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tau (Warhammer 40,000) Well, its nice to know that at least one user appreciates my efforts at improvement, but that's not the point. A redirect will save the history for those who are determined to see the old article, and I am willing to take personal responsibility to prevent anon reverts, or protect the page if necessary. There's nothing against it, and I'll even go through the double redirects. Tealwisp (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]