Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Hands

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. Reasons given for keeping are not based in Wikipedia policy. Neıl 龱 10:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Hands[edit]

Individual units in a tabletop game. No reliable independent sources, No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary; does not offer, and a examination of the internet and other databases (such as paid for news services or academic databases - I have access to both via work) search does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. The concept of legions is already covered in sufficent detail in the Space Marines articles and indeed in about five others that need merging to that umbrella article. Allemandtando (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. no out of universe notability --T-rex 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:: do you have anything to say about the actual article? I don't think "keep based on nominator" is a reason that's considered acceptable at AFD. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be the only one who feels like saying, "I view self-noms as prime-facie evidence of power hunger" can we not comment on the artilce rather than trying to undermine someone by an apparent "bias" for or against something. BigHairRef | Talk 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fictional element, sufficient notability, blah blah. Furthermore if you're going to nominate a basketload of related articles please read and follow the directions on how to clump them in one AfD. Jclemens (talk)

This, like the other articles noted, fails to meet WP:FICT, WP:GNG, and WP:TOYS. Because it is fiction does not make it inherently notable. The notability guidelines aren't stringent. They do not require that the sisters of battle cure cancer, just that an independent, reliable source wrote something about them. White Dwarf, Fanatic Magazine (this fanatic, as there are lots of mags w/ the same name) and the manuals for play are all printed by the game manufacturer. They are not independent of the article subject. Protonk (talk) 04:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- True there's no out of universe notability but then the same is true for the vast majority of articles on aspects of all fictional universes on here. As above too.--Him and a dog 14:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Plenty of those articles ARE described by reliable, independent sources. There are hundreds of books published about the simpsons that are independent of Gracie Films, for example. If articles exist which fail to meet the guidelines we are applying to this article then we should improve upon them. If they cannot be improved upon, they should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several general wargame and modelling magazines not owned by GW but who nonetheless cover its products as part of their subject matter.--Him and a dog 15:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. When one of them covers this subject, it can remain. I know grognard mags exist. That fact doesn't make this article any more notable. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge into imperial army article. not independently notable. A note to the closing admin: due to some recent deletion discussions, I feel compelled to point out that my !vote to merge should not be lumped in with keep !votes. Rather, if consensus leans toward deleting the article, then treat this as an additional delete comment. As for the source in the article, a read through about what white dwarf is might be instructive. Protonk (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting nomination of mass deletion - Whatever the outcome of this is, it should apply to every individual chapter article, and they should be nominated as such. Once that has happened, I endorse spreading nominations to include all articles under Category:Warhammer 40,000 that exhibit the same lack of notability. There's hundreds of them but hey, you've the time, right? --Agamemnon2 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. The nominator's reasons are thoroughly valid. Don't forget about what seems to be the small bit of OR in the final section of the article (i.e. what "some fans believe"). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:41, 2 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. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:50, 8 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.