Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperium of Man (Warhammer 40,000)

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 redirect to Warhammer 40,000. Per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. The argument not to merge, in that you can't merge poorly- or un-sourced material, is compelling. I'm not going to protect this. If that's abused, we can revisit protection later. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium of Man (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been repeatedly blanked in whole or in part, and then reverted. Rather than continuing the cycle I think it more proper to discuss here if it merits deletion. The rational for teh deletion would be that the article is poorly sourced fancruft and cannot be salvaged. Artw (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 July 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:GNG. The subject is an element of a larger game. I had repeatedly removed un-sourced fancruft, only to be reverted by those fans. I started discussions on the talk page, to no avail. I then merged sourced parts of this content to the main article and Artw started this discussion in response. Having attempting alternatives to deletion, the only choice now is delete and salt. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd contest that any meaningful attempt at merger took place, FWIW. Also the request for salting is ridiculous hyperbole. Artw (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I merged the cited content, which wasn't much. As the subject isn't notable and multiple editors have tried to retain it, salting is entirely appropriate as re-creation after deletion will most certainly occur. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

very very weak keep (bordering on delete) I have to say that this is not the only pointless page about 40K (we have pages on many of the formations, so it would seem odd not to have on e on the overall governing body). But other stuff is not really a reason to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Wikia, this information is largely fancruft and either primary sourced or original research. This information should only receive a mention in Warhammer 40,000, not its own article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:17, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found, otherwise merge / redirect. If the content has been merged, a fully indefinitely protected redirect should be sufficient to keep the article from being recreated. BOZ (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I haven't managed to find reliable sources which significantly cover the topic, although if someone can find a few of these, I have no problem with keeping. However, I strongly oppose deletion. It seems clear that this would be a likely search term and redirects are cheap. Also, we have an article about the video game and this feature seems to be a huge part of both the article and the game, so to me it makes the most sense to redirect it.--SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 14:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very familiar with Warhammer 40k and will say that the Imperium is very important to the game's story and many playable armies are either directly tied to them or have broken off from them. That said I am only providing this information and I am unsure if it should have it's own page, be merged to a page where they have the history of the 40k universe, or straight up deleted. GameInfirmary Talk 02:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : This very long and practically entirely unsourced text is probably the work of love of fans of the game. Nonetheless, the subject lacks independent notability, while the relative dearth of sources makes it impossible to merge into "Warhammer 40,000," since Wikipedia has no use for unsupported text, here or anywhere else. If we leave out the unsourced text (for which, I for one could not locate sources) we are left with a stub. -The Gnome (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On sources : At first glance, the text seems adequately sourced but it's not. The Troke et al publication is an expanded rule book for the game itself and not related to the subject (moreover, it's as primary a source as they come); the Escapist review mentions the subject twice in the course of describing the game; The Mary Sue article is about the game's alleged fascism, mentioning the subject a couple of times as an example of supposedly a fascist setting; the Critical Hit piece describes itself as "A Beginner’s Guide to Warhammer 40K"; and so on. The only text that resembles a bona fide source is the Sequart article which talks about the alleged "Nietzschean" aspects of the Imperium. -The Gnome (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2018 (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.