Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 July 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 all. Closure is based on strength of arguments presented, not vote counting. PhilKnight (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armageddon (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the locations that can used as part of game playing and influence some of the in-universe game mechanics included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with locations, none of these items have any real world notability, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past. Allemandtando (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the rationale given above:

Keep. I am not much of a wikipedia editor, but i was searching for info contained in this article. People will search for and use this infromation.67.175.86.191 (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Primary sources can be used to verify content but not to establish notability, and none of these fictional elements has anything resembling notability outwith the game background. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all 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! 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per the reasons stated above (of course, I'm biased). SAMAS (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the wiki police strike again, it seems. don't you have anything better to do than going around, deleting other peoples' partial works? Anonymous. 11:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.220.75 (talk) — 209.105.220.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all As with the other 40k sub-topics, each publication listed as a reference is published in whole by Games Workshop, the maker of the 40K and Epic miniature games. This includes White Dwarf, the codexes and the works of fiction. The publisher listed in the references section is "Nottingham", but each ISBN resolves to GW as the publisher. There does not exist independent, reliable secondary sourcing from which to establish notability on any of these articles. They are not 'granted' notability from their parent articles in WP:GNG, WP:FICT or WP:TOYS (the last two are, AFAIK, proposed but more lenient on notability and sourcing issues, these articles don't even meet those). Each of these may be transwikied during the nomination period but, if deleted, I suspect admins would be willing to userify to allow a transwiki to hammerwiki (as more than one claimed this on the last series of articles deleted). Some of these articles have been tagged for WP:WAF issues for months. One has been tagged for sources since march of 2007. Also, WP:GAMEGUIDE applies to some of the articles. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - They are not covered independently within reliable sources and they don't show any potential to be written in a real world context. They can be covered within other articles. TTN (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they can be covered elsewhere, then we merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't believe anyone has a problem with allowing these to be redirects. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thin veneer of setting over what amounts to a write-in campaign in a licensed magazine for "Vote for your favorite faction!" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One worldwide campaign... one board game, one expansion to the board game, the background for an entire edition(and two special characters) of the main game, an entire line of models, and a good supply of specialized models/conversion kits, if you wanna get technical. SAMAS (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major aspects or figures or settings in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. Conceivably merge to a combination article without loss of content. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one article or keep if not. Sourcing seems weak, but would make a good single article. The game is certainly significant enough to have a number of breakout articles. There are whole stores dedicated to the warhammer franchise. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What referenced material would you put into that article, other than recapping snippets of plot out of context? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The three battles for Armageddon are an important history to the Warhammer univers. I agree that the article is a bit messy, but if some of us Warhammer 40k fans spend some time to clean it up, it should be pretty nice. Most of the information here can be cited from White Dwarf magazine or from any Games Workshop personnel. Prottos007 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't provide any evidence of notability or does it solve the issue of 3rd party sources that provide evidence of notability. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As per all "Keep" comments. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Describing the content of the game and of aspects of the storyline should be acceptable. It is analagous to describing the plot of a book or film. If one were to become curious about an aspect of the published fiction, such as a particular character or location then one should be able to look it up. The problem I think is being had is that over the years the game & franchises have grown so much background and depth they defy classification either as a fictional story or a game. It (WH40K) is both of these things and far more, I can't think of a current pigeonhole for it so why not make a new one? Or be reasonable and leave it be to see how it evolves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.11.129 (talk) 12:42, 18 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.