Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Arbites (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeptus Arbites[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Adeptus Arbites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article was nominated a month ago for relying on primary sources, for providing no real-world context, and for being a WP:PLOT rehash. Nearly a month after the "no consensus" result, nothing has changed. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Warhammer 40,000. It has no real world context. Mainly plot info. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:PSTS says that primary sources are fine, provided that "anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source." And in-universe information isn't all that uncommon either. For example, take a look at the number of Star Wars related articles, such as Kyp Durron, Ben Skywalker, Cade Skywalker, Talon Karrde, Jaina Solo (placed in WP:ICU instead of being marked for deletion), Darth Bane, Lumiya, Darth Malak, Freedon Nadd, Ulic Qel-Droma, Mitth'ras'safis, Dash Rendar, Aurra Sing, Nomi Sunrider, Depa Billaba, Roan Fel, Adi Gallia, Grand Admiral Thrawn, Yuuzhan Vong, Chiss, Ssi-Ruuk, New Republic (Star Wars), Kyle Katarn and especially Ben Quadinaros and Sora Bulq. -- DataSnake Call me 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While it's true that articles can use primary sources for some material, there are no sources independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. The excessive in-universe plot material violates WP:NOT#PLOT. Frankly, the other articles mentioned above are likely prime candidates for deletion for similar reasons of lacking references to demonstrate notability as well. (And, as a new editor I would suggest reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Finally, it should be noted that this article has already been transwikied to the WH40 wikia, see here (and scroll down the list to find it). --Craw-daddy | T | 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, or merge References seem to be present outside the game, though not independent ones. Though this is an important game, Star Wars isn't a relevant precedent--it is much more culturally important and has an immensely greater secondary literature (if anyone does try to delete them as Crawdaddy suggest I do not think they will succeed, though some might well be merged). We should not be handling this in equivalent detail until there is at least some such literature. DGG (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have to disagree with you there. Aside from CS Goto's contributions, the Black Library books are AT LEAST on a par with most Star Wars novels. And regarding "other stuff exists", that wasn't really my point. The Star Wars novels are just that, secondary literature expanding the content of a primary source, just like the Black Library novels. Whether the Star Wars movies are more popular than the Warhammer 40,000 tabletop game is not really the point, as the issue in either case is "expanded universe" type materials. -- DataSnake my talk 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Star Wars novels are not "secondary literature". They are officially licensed from LucasArts. Likewise all the Star Wars encyclopedias et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Likewise, Black Library publications are approved by Games Workshop. I don't quite see the difference here. -- DataSnake my talk 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no difference. Star Wars articles sourced entirely to LucasArts-licensed works should also be deleted; their current existence is not an endorsement of their sourcing, and thus the argument that this page should exist because those do holds no weight. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient material which isn't in-universe or gameguide for this to stand as a separate article from Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I voted to keep weakly last time on the basis of a shred of possible out of universe coverage (Judge Dredd copyright issues). On reflection, any material that shows up about that is better summarized and cited in the Games Workshop article. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 19 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adeptus_Arbites_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144626581"