Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Games
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The wubbot (talk | contribs) at 18:15, 30 August 2008 (Archiving closed debates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Points of interest related to Video games on Wikipedia: Outline – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Assessment – Style – To-do |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Games: computer, video, board, card, etc. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Games|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Games: computer, video, board, card, etc.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Purge page cache | watch |
See also Sports-related deletions and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion.
Game-related deletions
- 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. Lack of reliable secondary sources is fatal. No prejudice against redirect and will userify on request for a prospective merge. — Coren (talk) 02:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Odessa (Wild Arms 2)
- Odessa (Wild Arms 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There are no reliable third-party references to support this article, and thus the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No sources in the article whatsoever. Google has a few hits, but they are either unreliable self-published sources, or trivial mentions of the subject that cannot allow us to verify the article's massive contents. Randomran (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment from nominator: I still don't see *any* sources for this article -- not in this article or elsewhere. But I think a merge to the List of Wild Arms 2 characters would be a reasonable compromise until further sources are found, perhaps supporting a split at a later time. Randomran (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 04:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. Randomran (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Wild Arms 2 characters, which has a {{mergefrom}} tag on it from January. Nifboy (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove this article is notable and verifiable, instead of citing WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Randomran (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to be convinced that it should be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to actually offer an argument for keeping, instead of WP:JUSTAPOLICY. This is supposed to be a discussion. Explain how this article meets its sourcing requirements in WP:GNG and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I see no actual argument for deleting, sources searches as this suggest it should be kept. That far more editors have volunteered their time over two years to edit this article than have argued to delete here, further suggest that the larger community believes it is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Le Grand, while I can appreciate and sometimes agree with your view of working hard to keep content on Wikipedia, the article in it's present state does not comply with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. The article is written in an in-universe perspective with no real-world content and uses no references.
The listing of google results does not provide much content from reliable sources either. After looking through the first four pages of results, most link to website user reviews, product listings, and pages for other uses of "odessa". That does not paint a picture of ample sources being available on this specific topic.
I would also like to point out that a number of editors in favor of something does not equate to a consensus. Given that the number of editors span a time period of two years, it doesn't make much sense to compare it to an AfD that has been open for a week.
Regardless of all that, I agree that the article can be salvaged to an extent—but the lack of sources makes me think not that much, maybe C-class at best. Which is why I'm in favor of redirecting it to List of Wild Arms 2 characters. But if it does not improved after time, there is no reason to keep it on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]- Wikipedia does not have a deadline and I would not oppose a redirect without deletion as a compromise for the time being. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Le Grand, while I can appreciate and sometimes agree with your view of working hard to keep content on Wikipedia, the article in it's present state does not comply with Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. The article is written in an in-universe perspective with no real-world content and uses no references.
- While I see no actual argument for deleting, sources searches as this suggest it should be kept. That far more editors have volunteered their time over two years to edit this article than have argued to delete here, further suggest that the larger community believes it is consistent with what Wikipedia is. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to actually offer an argument for keeping, instead of WP:JUSTAPOLICY. This is supposed to be a discussion. Explain how this article meets its sourcing requirements in WP:GNG and WP:V. Randomran (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to be convinced that it should be deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PROVEIT. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to prove that an apple is apple. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Le Grand, but this is not a case of proving an apple is apple. This is a case of proving if this topic with no listed references at all is notable. Unsourced content can easily be construed as original research and though verifiable, the content is written in an in-universe perspective with no real-world content. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Those are reasons to revise, not delete. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Le Grand, but this is not a case of proving an apple is apple. This is a case of proving if this topic with no listed references at all is notable. Unsourced content can easily be construed as original research and though verifiable, the content is written in an in-universe perspective with no real-world content. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- No need to prove that an apple is apple. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please prove this article is notable and verifiable, instead of citing WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Randomran (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from article creator I'm probably just going to merge it to the character list regardless. I can pretty easily just copy/paste all the important info without losing anything and I can replace the pictures with a superior group shot from the artbook. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge seems the best solution to these, except for the most notable games. However, there is no need to verify the content of an articl about iction of non-self-published sources, if there are self published ones are reliable. But that too needs to be specified. DGG (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless verifiable, third-party sources can be found to satisty WP:GNG for every object. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. MuZemike (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: Deletion sounds like the appropriate response, but I think redirecting it to List of Wild Arms 2 characters is a reasonable compromise. However, should the article pop up again in a similar format—with no references and too many non-free images—then deletion sounds like the best course. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced by independent references (WP:V), no assertion of notability has been made (WP:N), fails our writing about fiction guidelines (WP:WAF) with respect to out-of-universe context. Marasmusine (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article does not indicate any real-world significance of this fictional element. It also appears to be original research based on primary source material. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't cite reliable, independent sources, as required by WP:GNG. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are all five of you the same person using different accounts or is it just a coincidence that I sense the same air of robotic, thoughtless personalities from those replies? Someone just end this so I can merge the article without being nagged at by template messages on my talk page. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:CIVIL. MuZemike (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. We all happen to have the relatively widely held opinion that articles need to have at least "some" secondary sourcing. It isn't thoughtless, but it is a little robotic. After the 400th time you say it, you still...have to say it. Articles will continue to be created that are outside the community's desired goals and we will continue to have these discussions. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never objected to the article's deletion, it just really irks me that when something's been said so many times by so many other people already in the exact same manner, they could at least have the decency to change their wording and/or offer an actual, constructive opinion on the subject in question instead of slapping it with a copy/pasted comment from a dozen other unrelated discussions. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't copied and pasted. The article doesn't cite a single source. We require that it cite several. there aren't too many different ways to show that, and after the 50th time of saying it, you run out of interest in changing it just to be clever. If the situation were different from most other times, what I write would be different. If something is repeated AfD to AfD without regard for how it actually relates to the discussion at hand, that is copy/pasted. In this case, these people are chiming in so that we don't somehow mistake the discussion here as "no consensus". And as for the "constructive opinion", what constructive opinion would you have me offer about this article? Protonk (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The general constuctive opinion I had in mind was "Subject does not require its own article, cull and merge relevant character information to the main game article or character list article." It's pretty basic, but still better than "Delete this per WP:blahblahblah." - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "better"? Protonk (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see anyone commit WP:JUSTAPOLICY or WP:VAGUEWAVE here, except for the obvious. MuZemike (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The general constuctive opinion I had in mind was "Subject does not require its own article, cull and merge relevant character information to the main game article or character list article." It's pretty basic, but still better than "Delete this per WP:blahblahblah." - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't copied and pasted. The article doesn't cite a single source. We require that it cite several. there aren't too many different ways to show that, and after the 50th time of saying it, you run out of interest in changing it just to be clever. If the situation were different from most other times, what I write would be different. If something is repeated AfD to AfD without regard for how it actually relates to the discussion at hand, that is copy/pasted. In this case, these people are chiming in so that we don't somehow mistake the discussion here as "no consensus". And as for the "constructive opinion", what constructive opinion would you have me offer about this article? Protonk (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are all five of you the same person using different accounts or is it just a coincidence that I sense the same air of robotic, thoughtless personalities from those replies? Someone just end this so I can merge the article without being nagged at by template messages on my talk page. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:11, 3 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) 01:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically it is if there is a lack of reliable independent sources. Just to clarify, I'm still in favor of a selective merge and redirect. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Doctorfluffy did not invoke WP:JNN. He was verbose, as that essay suggests one should be. Marasmusine (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can sum that edit up as essentially arguing the subjective "not notable," when it is obviously notable to those who created, worked on, and read the article, i.e. people who leave in the real world. Given the RfC over notability that shows a total lack of consensus when it comes to fictional notability and spinoff articles, it seems questionable. A simple Google search suggests that it can be verified as well in reviews of the game, which means coverage in independent sources. Now what is and is not "significant" is something that is again subjective as argued as demonstrated by the lack of consensus in the RfC on notability an other similar discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can sum that edit as "not notable", but that would ignore the reasoning listed for that statement.
And while notability is subjective to an extent, Wikipedia is concerned with the notability demonstrated by the existence of reliable and independent sources making note of topic. Unfortunately, our perception of notability as editors and readers is not part of the equation at WP:N.
I would also like to point out that the number of google results is misleading as most link to website user reviews, product listings, and pages for other uses of "odessa". (Guyinblack25 talk 17:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]- Feh, Wikipedia's concept of "it may be relevant to the interests of many people and is an important sub-topic of a major subject, but it's not actually notable enough to be read on our nonscholarly internet quick reference site unless an irrelevant fanboy writer on IGN says something about it" notability is pretty asinine. It's somewhat pointless to discuss that here though anyway since this is really a MoS-related deletion and not a notablity one, seeing as the core information's notable enough to be kept but it's pointless to have its own article(this article was actually made more than a year before the main character list IIRC). Someone end this already. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can sum that edit as "not notable", but that would ignore the reasoning listed for that statement.
- You can sum that edit up as essentially arguing the subjective "not notable," when it is obviously notable to those who created, worked on, and read the article, i.e. people who leave in the real world. Given the RfC over notability that shows a total lack of consensus when it comes to fictional notability and spinoff articles, it seems questionable. A simple Google search suggests that it can be verified as well in reviews of the game, which means coverage in independent sources. Now what is and is not "significant" is something that is again subjective as argued as demonstrated by the lack of consensus in the RfC on notability an other similar discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uriel Ventris
- Uriel Ventris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed prod. No evidence or assertion of significant third-party coverage to establish notability, and Google search results quickly degenerate into Deviant Art and fan sites. Article is entirely plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the Ultramarines novels are an entertaining read, this article fails (as do so many other 40K articles) by not having any real-world context and relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 14:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as the user who seconded the prod. This article makes no claim to notability beyond trying to inherit it from notability of the greater warhammer universe. Additonally no independent sources are provided. --T-rex 14:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is written entirely in-universe, and is nothing but plot summary. It might belong (probably in shortened form) in an article on the novel series, or characters in Warhammer 40000 novels, but there doesn't seem to be one. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. Protonk (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has notablility per some of the things Le Grand Roi de Citrouille mentions to you (and pardon my coarse language) ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you read the talk page for the article, you would understand what I am trying to say. If you continue like this I will call in an admin. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude. Admins aren't parents. The article doesn't cite independent sources and that is required per the general notability guideline. Because no daughter guideline exists for fictional subjects, that's all we have. Deleting it isn't defacement or wrong or anything. And having LGRDC tell us that the article meets his criteria for inclusion doesn't mean that it meets the project criteria for inclusion. Protonk (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and, for "all the fucking time"s I or someone else has been told something, there's a pretty even track record for overly-in-universe plot summaries like these to be deleted. Perhpaps you'd be more content editing at the in-universe Warhammer wiki, wherever that is. --EEMIV (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Call in an admin"? Who do you think has been closing the vast majority of these AfDs? Answer: Admins. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Who would I discuss the overzealous deletionist attitude with? Answer is admins. If you wish to continue this deabte please go to my talk page where I'm more likely to see it.For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article has no notablility per the many things said by many people in the many discussions of WH40K AfDs (and pardon my coarse language) ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you read all the other AfDs, or even just this one, you would understand what I am trying to say. If you continue like this I will have a cup of coffee.210.160.15.16 (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could the article be left for twelve hours max so I can transwiki a small part to Lexicanum? For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion will go for 5 days.
And we don't share a license with Lexicanum. Perhaps the Warhammer 40K wikia might be better, as noted in the project page for 40K. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I don't see a license declaration, but it doesn't look incompatible. Transwiki there if you want to, but it might be better on the wikia. Protonk (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It still works OK for me. But thanks for recommending it, I will transwiki on both wikis as best I can. (and apologies). For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- for the wikia, Falcorian is an admin there, so he can use the Special:Import function (or whatever that is there). Protonk (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I've dealt with the appropriate transwiki. Please could you put a bit about Falcorian on my talk page so I can remember as I doubt I wll be paying much attention to this after it's been deleted. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion will go for 5 days.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 16:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but possibly merge into a new article for the Ultramarines characters, the preferred way of handling this. There is no reason presentd why this cannot be part of a combination article if it lacks sufficient importance for its own. DGG (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have two primary objections to doing that. One, these articles don't tend to accrete notability as sub-articles are merged into them. 0+0 is still 0. Most of these articles have absolutely zero independent sources, so the combination of several article makes one article with no independent sources. The second stems from the general length and detail issues that WH40K articles have without the issue of sub-article mergers. The reference material produced by the company is...voluminous. I know this isn't your thing, but send away for a copy of the "basic" codex (rulebook) through interlibrary loan. In just that base guide, there is enough detail to populate hundreds of kilobytes (even when summarizing) and it is only one of many codexes. The primacy of minutiae (in both the fictional works and the reference works, detail is very important, often more important than a bird's eye view) and sheer volume of coverage make it difficult to cut material down, even when editors with to shorten articles. So a merger just converts a notability problem into a quality problem, and I'd prefer we not do that. Protonk (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no third-party coverage, so no notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Revote- delete for the reasons given by others. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grey Knights
- Grey Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Purely in-universe reiteration of plot material. Previously redirected to the (now-deleted) Daemonhunters, redirect and subsequent prod reverted without rationale by anons. No notability established through reliable third-party sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 10:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I understand why the anon reverted it, because it was redirecting to a now non-existent page. So I have no hard feelings towards them. However, while there are copious third party references to WH40K in general, there are no third party sources addressing the Grey Knights in depth. Third party source references to the Grey Knights are minimal and trivial at best. The only sources which cover them in depth are first party sources, by Games Workshop or Games Workshop subsidiaries. Thus, while it's interesting as hell (I'm big into 40K), it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's requirements for notability. I wish Wikipedia allowed this type of article, but this discussion isn't about what we wish Wikipedia did or didn't allow, but whether this particular page satisfies the requirements of Wikipedia. So Warhammer 40K passes the Wikipedia notability requirement. The Grey Knights, as a separate and independent page, does not. Notability is not inherited, so all that's left is the argument that this is a description of part of the description of a notable topic. While this does satisfy the Five Pillars, it falls afoul of "What Wikipedia Is Not", specifically: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." A 20K breakout page of one single aspect of a notable work (the work being the game WH40K itself) is pretty much the precise opposite of "concise". A single, short, non-compound sentence somewhere in the 40K article itself would be appropriate given the breadth of 40K and the significance of the Grey Knights within it.210.160.15.16 (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:RS and WP:V ("Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy") by relying on primary sources. Has no real-world context. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 13:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and delete Outside of one half of the first sentence of this article, it's all in-universe material. More relevant to a deletion discussion, there's no independent references to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just out of interest - transwiki to what? Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To the Warhammer 40k wikia. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All the sources are published by Games Workshop or its subsidiary, and I can't imagine any others outside fan sites and so on, so it fails WP:N on independent sources. Soaringgoldeneagle (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent sources, so no notability. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess kids
- 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. Mr.Z-man 23:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chinchón (game)
- Chinchón (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable card game. Not much on Google. DimaG (talk) 03:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't seem notable enough, Google comes up with another card game [1]. I would need more proof that this game is well-known. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. — Mm40 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.