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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titan (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Titan (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just an in-universe repetition of plot points from various Warhammer 40,000 articles. It is therefore duplicative and trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The forgeworld links are catalogue entries. The codexes are published by Games Workshop (the creator of 40K and EPIC), as is the work of fiction referenced as a source (Note the publisher is Games Workshop). Does not use material from independent sources to establish notability per the enacted WP:GNG, the proposed WP:TOYS, or the proposed WP:FICT. Warhammer 40k is notable. Daughter elements of the 40k universe (and play mechanics) are not necessarily notable. If reliable secondary sources are produced which attest to the notability of the article, then it may be retained in a form that at least marginally complies with WP:WAF. Protonk (talk) 08:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, titans are component of Dawn of War- a computer game that did rather well- in addition to regular WH40K. GW does not make computer games and they are heavily covered in secondary sources. Titans being a major part of Epic 40k have also been featured in non-GW wargame magazines.--Him and a dog 09:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that we can find secondary sources that cover the subject in significant details, then, right? If a single reliable, independent source exists covering the subject in significant detail (or just more than trivial, and the subject itself, not "blah, blah, other subject, titans, blah, blha, other subject"), I'll reverse my position immediately and work to stub and source the article. Protonk (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not mock your fellow contributors. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What part of that made you think I was mocking him? Protonk (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "blah, blah, other subject, titans, blah, blha, other subject" seemed a little mocking. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails enacted WP:GNG, the proposed WP:TOYS, or the proposed WP:FICT as noted by protonk. As some might be aware, I've been working extensively in this area and that also has involved quite a lot of off-line work looking at the source material and looking for sources - the truth is, it doesn't exist or the coverage is so marginal as not to matter for daughter articles such as this. The whole warhammer 40k area should be about a 3rd of it's current size. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no evidence that this topic is the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not notable, there would be nothing to merge. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, it is notable enough to be even the title of published books for which I reckon reviews also exist. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to prove notability, not hint at it, guess at it, suggest it might exist. That is what verifiability is all about. You have no idea what's in that book, and it is much more likely, if we are going to guess, to simply be gameguide material, which establishes nothing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appearances in multiple books, however, established notability and verifiability by any reasonable standard, especially when the books aren't themselves gameguides. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is totally false, and you know it, as I have told you a thousand times in a thousand AFD's. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is true by any reasonable standard and no reasonable person has ever told me otherwise. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The google search returns nine hits, including Epic Level Handbook (Dungeon & Dragons d20 3.0 Fantasy Roleplaying) and The World of Warhammer: The Official Encyclopedia of the Best-Selling Fighting Fantasy Game and a handful of spin-off comic books published by the game publisher. ...and so you say that the few comic books aren't in fact primary references, and the mention in the game guide, amount to a demonstration of notability because this amounts to the "extensive coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject" required to meet WP:N? Count me in among those people you consider unreasonable for merely disagreeing with you. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. I need to do some fiddling with this. In addition to being giant robots (DO NOT HASSLE ME ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PILOTED) in a fictional setting, they're also a sub-line of toys/models in a best-selling miniatures game. Let me see what I can do to slash this down and source some real life claims. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The same goes for all the other Warhammer 40,000 sub-articles. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:PERNOM and WP:ALLORNOTHING. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primary sources can be used to verify information but not to assert notability, and most of the information in the article is unsalvageably in-universe. Insofar as the subject is notable it is because of the use of the miniatures in Epic (game) and associated video games; there is no need for a separate article considering the extreme lack of notable non-universe material. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article can be used for information in an article on Titans in popular culture or for a disambiguation page on Titans. Plenty of legitimate reasons for merging and redirecting as such, but not for outright deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic that assert any notability. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although this notable article passes what Wikipedia is and has sufficient reliable sources to justify inclusion or at least purposes for merge and redirect, which leads to suspect that the discussion above is a "no consensus" at this point, I would in the worst case scenario still appreciate a userfied version as I have some ideas that would take more than five days to execute. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. There are no sources independent of Games Workshop (or its affiliates or officially licensed material) to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:50, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Titan_(Warhammer_40,000)&oldid=1136466994"