Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Lords of Terra

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) 18:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Lords of Terra[edit]

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Wholly in-universe repetition of plot information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, 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! 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability through significant coverage in independent sources. Article is nothing more than pure plot summary, and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much to this. Plot material. All in universe. Almost zero impact on 40K the game (As well as 40K the fictional setting). No reliable secondary sources discussing the topic. Fails WP:PLOT (this is debatable depending on your interpretation) and WP:GNG (this isn't, really). Again, for the sake of discussion, the sources provided are produced by Games Workshop in order to sell workbooks, fiction and toys. They don't write codexes because there is a rich game world to chronicle. They create the rich game world in order to sell codexes. This distinction is important in considering why WP:GNG should apply here. Protonk (talk) 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Thanks! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subjects indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion when the article is notable to a real world audience and has sufficient coverage for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - TThat was not the reason given. --T-rex 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet more warhammer with no independent sources --T-rex 15:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:19, 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.