Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Macragge

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) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Macragge

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of plot information from other Warhammer 40,000 articles. As such, it is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ the only part of this not entirely "in world" is the last section, which reads like an advertisement for the "Battle for Macragge box-set". I see no assertion of notability here at all, no rationale for this article ("plot summary" would be a much better description) to be included in an encyclopedia, and I can't think of one that doesn't boil down to all information relating to Warhammer 40,000 is inherently notable. Perhaps there's a Warhammer 40,000 wiki this could be transferred to. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~transwiki~~ I notice that there is no article on "Battle of Macragge" at warhammeronline.wikia.com, in fact searching for "Macragge" generates no hits. Clearly, this article belongs on the Warhammer 40,000 wikiasite if it belongs anywhere. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not concerned about the article, but the reason you're not seeing anything about Macragge there is that Warhammer Online is not the same as Warhammer 40K. You should have been looking at the 40K wikia, which has an article [1]. Your search was about as fruitful as looking at a Harry Potter Wiki for information on Tolkien. 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.31.157 (talk)

Sme company, different universe, related marketing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I stand corrected, back to delete for the reasons above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the nom's reasons. If anyone wants this as a transwiki, I can undelete for that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unnecessary expansion of in-universe information. Without coverage in reliable sources, it should be detailed within other articles, rather than as its own topic. TTN (talk) 23:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, I agree. Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as necessasary spinoff or subarticle 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. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Real world coverage is required for every article, and there are no exceptions that can be pointed to in policy. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, there's plenty of that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about using spurious reasoning in these discussions, and also about using amazon or google searches, which prove nothing and are off topic. Please stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been warned about making mass nominations for deletions that overwhelm AfD. Please stop doing that. Using amazon and google searches are fine when in this case they prove notability and verifiability and are on topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PROTIP: When copy-pasting something to reverse an argument against someone, make sure your comments make sense!

Which of those broad, vague searches has a reliable third-party reference we can use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Grand Roi, you amaze me, you think that 15~ AFD's will overwhelm the AFD process? When 100+ are nominated every day? You use words to confuse and fillibuster conversations, and this is yet another example of you trying to intimidate me and others with utter nonsense. So again, stop. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem, hundred+ nominated every day seems too much to get really thorough discussions on and elsewhere someone outright stated "there are about another 60 warhammer AFDs to come" (verbatim quote), which is a bit of a concern. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a concern if they don't meet the guidelines for inclusion. So what if someone stated that more Warhammer AfD's were coming down the pike. AfD is a process, not a mistake. If we have some evidence that the nominator in question is abusing that process, I'm sure it will be brought up. Without that evidence it is unseemly to suggest that the nomination is improper or that the nominator has been "warned" about the nominations. Again, the easiest way to save this article is to produce a single reliable, independent source. Protonk (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fascinating how this term shows up in such places as [2]. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Merge Interesting to read, but doesn't seem notable. At least not enough for it's own page. The info can be easily summarized and placed into the Warhammer 40,000 article.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 22:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge suitably. I do think that 15 afds on a subject does overwhelm the process--especially when the reasons given for deletion are essentially identical, and the people urging deletion object to similar defenses of the article being used. It's already so much easier to delete than to save an article, that this sort of tactic seems altogether unfair. DGG (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in-universe cruft without third-party sources or notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Address the arguments made instead of enforcing political correctness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arguments that use "cruft" are weak. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in-universe cruft that demonstrates no real notability and is not the subject of any 3rd party analysis or reporting in reliable sources. In regards to DGG point, while to a degree I take it on board - I've tried (as the other person busy AFDing warhammer 40k articles) to group then - but I've tried to keep the groups logical - so "space chaos marines", "legions" for the easy of the people considering the AFD. Having said that - I estimate that there are another 40 or so articles to be AFD'd at this point before the area is stripped down to the aricles that sourcing and notability can support. Then there is MASSIVE clean-up work to be done. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy Festival of Castor and Pollux! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Discussing cruft#Cruft is a real problem, not a dirty word ("Because cruft is a real problem, efforts to identify cruft should be taken in good faith.") --Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also the "good example" at Wikipedia:Discussing cruft#Don't just state it as Allemandtando's stated reasons for deletion are completely valid (and in line with this equally relevant, or equally pointless, essay). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Le Grand (from the essay you linked): "This is an essay ... You may follow it or not". You linking to it doesn't make anyone's arguments weaker or less relevant than yours.--Koji †Dude ^(C) 23:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Call them what you will, I do not think that is what matters. The question is what to do with them. Allemantando, if you think a merge impractical ,why not simply do a redirect. That's really all that you argue for. DGG (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, indepedent sources establish notability. Also, this is a 40K page. I'm pretty sure that an encyclopedia of the Warhammer universe will not provide information on a battle in the 40K universe (like using a starcraft source to verify a warcraft article). I've removed the source as of this revision and I would appreciate it if some explanation about how the source verifies the text was provided if the source is returned. This article is FAR more compliant with WP:WAF than most of the other 40K articles I have seen, but compliance with an editorial guideline does not inform the deletion debate. Protonk (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been stubbed. Advert and plot summary content removed. With sources, it could be merged. Without sources, there is nothing to merge. Also, it has been tagged for references since 2006. Yikes. Protonk (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of article have been around for two years with limited improvement only for someone to come along and bring them up a notch. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm not listing that as a reason for deletion. It is a comment. If sources exist, articles may always be improved. however, this is a case where a clear need for sourcing existed and was not answered for 2 years. The takeaway is, then, to treat this differently than a page that was recently created (where I feel a great deal more leeway about sourcing in the "current state" can be given). If we don't have reliable, independent sources for similar 40K articles AND this one languished for two years without sources, we might the be able to make some reasonably good inference about the existence of sources out there. No? Protonk (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability asserted by reliable sources independent of the topic. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:39, 16 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.