Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor's Children

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. Sandstein 23:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor's Children

This article was supposed to be added to a group AFD, but was left out of the list, and is currently too commented on to add now, so here it is. The article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is an in-universe repetition of plot elements from the Warhammer 40,000 articles. As such, it is duplicative, un notable, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or transwiki to the Warhammer wiki per nom. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N and WP:V. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia: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. WP:PERNOM, WP:JNN, and Wikipedia:VAGUEWAVE are not convincing reasons for deletion. Duplicative content can and should be merged and redirected without deletion. Also, please note that the article's name is not unique to Warhammer, see this book and so at worst, perhaps we should consider creating some kind of disambiguation page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. And where is this group delete? I've seen nothing of that being sneaked in.--Him and a dog 21:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N and WP:V.This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the legions that are mentioned in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with the 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. In addition, this topic is already covered in a more suitable parent article. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Topics already covered elsewhere are merged and redirected without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are also mentioned in numerous novels and in computer games, they are fully notable. For a comparison look for instance to Forgotten Realms, a fictional world created by one company with everything on it sanctioned by that company. Yet it is allowed a variety of articles on various aspects of it despite it being a lot less notable than WH40K (to find anything on that you have to look into the darkest recesses of a book shop rather than a clearly visible high street shop). How about Dragonlance too? That's even more obscure than FR, no computer games to bring that even slightly into public view. For instance look here: Goldmoon, if this is deserving then Horus would be yet he doesn't have a article, just the legions do. And Known Space; totally and completely unknown to the general public, even sci-fi fans might not know the name of the world (only some of its more famous component novels) yet it has all sorts of individual articles.--Him and a dog 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Realms (and Dragonlance) have both been the direct subject of high-selling books. The only thing comparable to that here is - what - a pack of Noise Marine blisters? OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is complete non-argument in AfD, and frankly if I were an inclusionist here I wouldn't be so willing to go pointing out other marginal articles to Allemantando if I wanted them to be kept hanging around. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Primary sources can be used to verify information but not to assert notability, and most of the material here is unsalvageably in-universe. Very little can be said on the subject outwith its fictional depiction. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The other articles of this type have now been deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters. Sandstein 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:NOT. Eusebeus (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:VAGUEWAVE. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is a repetition of plot elements from the Warhammer 40,000 universe. As such, this fancrap is duplicative, non-notable, trivial, and should be deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to WP:JNN, duplicative text is redirected, but not outright deleted. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please elaborate further. You have not yet convinced me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you open-minded to changing your stance? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's just continue this in one place. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a different discussion, as here I am suggesting that in instances where material is duplicated we can just redirect and forgo a deletion discussion. In that other article, I am suggesting more or less overwriting the article and focusing on the real-world historical use of the term. Now for this article, if say, editors do not want an article on Emperor's Children in the Warhammer sense, there is however a novel of the same name that does in fact have reviews in such reliable sources as The New York Times, which again, suggests that we should not only be discussing if Emperor's Children should be a red-link, we also need to consider if we can overwrite the article to cover other uses of the term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I de-watchlisted this, you're lucky I caught the reply. Fortunately though, that means we can continue this discussion! I don't see why a book existing with the title of this article is grounds for not deleting this. Just create the book's article at Emperor's Children (book). This is common practice. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If that's the case, then there's no reason to not redirect this to that article and just note that "Emperor's Children" is also a name used in Warhammer, as clearly editors and readers do come here for this content. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, this seems like a thinly veiled attempt to preserve the edit history. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is incredibly helpful in RfAs, even if that is not my main argument. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Same reply as here. Replace the relevant phrases in the portion about history books with "the title of an unrelated novel". Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Replied as follows [1]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. (For those who don't know what that means, it means that it's a subject nobody has seen fit to comment on in reliable sources.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break: making article not solely about Warhammer

I have begun that effort. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I've UNdone that. We don't cram multiple non-related things into one article just because they share a name. Make an article for the novel if you feel it needs one. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll merge that content then into a different article, but we can still use this one as a disambugation page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between the novel and the novel? You haven't presented any argument why we need an article about this group in WH40K. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need it because readers and editors believe it worthwhile to our project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, for someone who links WP:ATA at least three times in every AFD, you haven't read it very well. Where are the reliable third-party references that we can use to write this article? Wishful thinking does not get articles written. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already added some as indicated above in the sense of revising the article as something of a disambugation page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added some references about an entirely different subject with a similar name. Super. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 20:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One of the above participants in this discussion has been determined as a likely ban evading sock account. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - per User:A Man In Black. Chaos Space Marines are notable, this is not. Actually Delete and redirect to Chaos Space Marines --T-rex 14:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERNOM and WP:JNN are arguments to avoid. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So is WP:JUSTA. Refute his claims or stop wasting everyone's time. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Already refuted above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:07, 19 July 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.