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

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. Sandstein 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eldar Gods (Warhammer 40,000)

Strictly in-universe, and an extremely high-level of detail. At best, a merge candidate with Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), but may be too detailed and in-universe to even salvage for that. Jaysweet (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Independent secondary sources are nonexistent. Strictly background material for the race for the most part. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as even nomination says it's a merge candidate, which would preclude outright deletion. At least relevant redirect as well to an article on Elder Gods. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination says "At best it is a merge candidate" (emph. added, but since I am quoting myself I think it's okay ;) ). I am still endorsing deletion, because I am not convinced any of the content is independently notable enough to be worth merging into Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). But I'm allowing that a case could be made for merging. Somebody's gotta volunteer to do it, though, and that ain't me. The ironic thing is that Allemandtando was pretty good at doing that kind of merge/trim work... heh. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has a merge discussion been tried first? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Largely because nobody is interested in doing anything constructive with this article. I'm not going to merge it. The pissed-off 4channers aren't going to merge it (all they do is whine about how they need a month to transwiki a single article). And furthermore, I would reiterate that I don't believe there is any content worth merging. I allowed in the nom for the possibility I might be wrong about that, but so far nobody has provided any evidence that I am. (Oh, and BTW, this has nothing at all to do with Elder God other than phonetic similarity. Perhaps Booger should redirect to Burger???) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no reason why it couldn't be redirected without AfD discussion to a disambugation page on Elder Gods or to Warhammer 40,000. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has nothing at all to do with any sort of Elder Gods (did you read the article?) and no WH40K article covers (or should cover) this exceedingly trivial subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All those who saw fit to create, work on, and read the article seem to disagree. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, all those? I voted to delete, and I've made more positive contributions to said article (fixing the categories) than anyone who has thus far commented on keeping it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) I strongly oppose a redirect to Elder Gods because it has nothing to do with the other. I am not at all opposed to a redirect to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). I'm not sure how useful such a redirect would be, but it wouldn't bother me. Should we just do that then? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative suggestion seems reasonable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like the other 40k sub pages, this one does not cite independent, reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. For the uninitiated, the Eldar are a race in 40k (Incidentally, they were ripped off by Starcraft. seriously, compare the eldar to the Protoss), a minature combat game produced by games workshop. the Gods for the aldar have little impact on the game except as a note on unit coloration in some cases (you paint the miniatures, BTW). Protonk (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmrpblrglpharb. This is one-half made up bullshit, one half fanon, one half speculation, and 100% unsourced OR claptrap. For anyone who cares, the mythology of this particular race (one of about a half-dozen in WH40K) is hinted at here and there, with little short stories that don't really fit into any sort of continuity. What's more, it's backstory to a non-narrative tabletop game (and not story to, you know, an actual story), so most players aren't aware or aren't interested, and understanding it isn't needed even for the most hard-core players. This is the WH40K cruft at its very worst. Kill it with fire. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. This aspect of the game has not garnered non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources. — Satori Son 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete (or maybe just delete). There are no references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. (Could this just be speedied as incomprehensible nonsense? It's pretty incomprehensible to me, as it is written.) --Craw-daddy | T | 21:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extensive plot summary, without any sort of real-world content in the form of critical analysis, development, impact, etc, of a non-notable topic that has not recieved significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 23:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of original research, 95% of it could be excised without any problem and what remains belongs in Eldar (Warhammer 40,000) (which needs a serious cleanup itself). Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT, lots of original research. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto a list of warhammer40k characters 70.51.8.103 (talk) 06:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
TransWiki - To wikia.--SkyWalker (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000). Article has refs so it can't be entirely OR/speculation/etc.--PeaceNT (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article takes contradictory short stories from those refs, decides some of them are canon and some aren't, and forms an arbitrary continuity. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable to anyone but fanboys, ironically evidenced by the sources themselves. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 17:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such "fanboys" also read, contribute, and donate to our project. While I think sourcing is a legitimate reason to critique an article, as far as who's interested in is not as one could say articles on plant species are only interesting to bonatists, articles on any select song is only interesting to fans of that genre, and so on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't cover these things. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just not notable and I own all of the source material (sad I know). --Prisongangleader (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JNN. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:11, 26 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.