Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gene-seed

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. Fram (talk) 09:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gene-seed[edit]

Fictional in-universe account of bio-engineering. No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. Allemandtando (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Several Times (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then Delete I'll merge this article with the main Space Marines article, as this information does not require a page of its own. AlmondManTwo (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the nomination, not the nominator. Protonk (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly states that it is a fictional element, and meets those notability standards. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. It doesn't meet the proposed WP:TOYS or WP:FICT guidelines. To which notability guideline are you referring? Protonk (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no out of universe notability, no independent sources and fails WP:TOYS --T-rex 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Space Marine article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not satisfy Wikipedia:FICT#Creating fictional element lists.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources cited are independent of the game publisher. White Dwarf is published entirely by Games Workshop, as are the game manuals. If a reliable independent source covers the subject of this article in non-trivial detail I will reverse my vote. Protonk (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For fictional pieces of work, it would be unreasonable to demand a independent, verifiable source. Such a demand would put all but the most painfully notable TV shows, literature and other entertainment mediums into jeopardy. Often, self-published sources suffice for articles of this nature. 141.117.181.141 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC) — 141.117.181.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It isn't unreasonable at all. It is, in fact, policy. WP:WAF suggests that the use of primary sources is unavoidable for fiction articles. It most certainly does NOT state that such sources are sufficient or proper for establishing notability. If a secondary source can't be found that covers the subject, it isn't notable. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. No demonstration of notability via reliable independent sources (i.e. independent of Games Workshop). --Craw-daddy | T | 07:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cruft. See WP:PLOT. No need to transwiki, HammerWiki ([1]) already has an article better than this. Neıl 龱 14:45, 3 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.