Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Languages of the Imperium

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) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Languages of the Imperium

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that it fails WP:RS, but it certainly fails WP:N as none of the sources it quotes are independent. for the benefit of users unfamilar with Games Workshop: the extensive backstory developed for the games is done so by the company in order to sell ancillary products (such as novels, guidebooks, etc.). As such, they control the copyright pretty tightly. While it is tempting to argue that future research can always result in the discovery of independent sources, it isn't too likely with games workshop's intellectual property. The content produced by games workshop is voluminous, yes, but it is so because of the intent in creation, not because the subject matter merits voluminous coverage (as would be the case if the makers of reference material were independent from the subject). Therefore this should not be viewed as a case where the general notability guideline is wrong, but a case where it is properly applied. And since this article cites no independent secondary sources to assert notability, it should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. This is barely covered by the game, a couple of pages in the sourcebooks over the course of twenty years or so, and there is no chance that it received a wider treatment from reliable thrid parties. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Chris Cunningham. Extremely doubtful reliable independent sources have ever devoted substantial coverage to these fictional languages. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability shown, and no reliable sources. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an extremely trivial aspect of the WH40K background, barely even treated by Games Workshop's primary sources let alone secondary sources. the wub "?!" 11:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks references to secondary, third-party sources reflecting the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. --EEMIV (talk) 19:05, 23 August 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.