Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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. Neıl 龱 10:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)

[edit]
Weapons and equipment of the Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, a comprehensive list of every weapon and vehicle included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions is not notable. None of these items have any real world notability, either individually or as a collection, 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 in this area and in areas such as video games. Allemandtando (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Article has potential and isn't a stub. Though I would like to see the article have some sources, the article is large enough to say there must be quite a few people who ascertained the information. Yamakiri TC § 07-1-2008 • 17:30:40 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It just doesn't exist - it's all in-universe. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki then delete, it's a fictional universe so you can't expect much more than self published sources. However the issue here is the quantity of information, too much detail for Wikipedia, this is better off at a dedicated Wiki site. Rasadam (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep someone said they would attempt to transwiki the data this weekend. Whether or not they begin on time or manage to get around to this particular page is a different matter. I'll try to contact the IP with express priority for the three pages that Allemandtando nominated for deletion despite the fact he knows full well his actions will disrupt the transwiki process. I am intrigued as to why you consider the codex and White Dwarf magazines not to be reliable resources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they are created by the game maker. If we had some secondary source talking about how notable and awesome the Weapons and Equipment of the Tau Empire are, we could use the GW sources to flesh out the details (see WP:SPS, and WP:RS). As it stands, all we have to assert notablity (not that they do) are the works of the article subject. How, if we use the GW sources, do we draw a line forbidding other promotional entries into the encyclopedia? As it stands, the notability and sourcing guidelines provide that rather neatly. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator seems to have some sort of burr under his blanket about the 40K articles. L0b0t (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the NOMINATION, not the nominator, please. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about bad faith nomination to make a point. Nominator is on some sort of dark crusade to cleanse the wiki of Warhammer 40k articles. L0b0t (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about assuming good faith. He appears to be about the business of methodically nominating articles in the 40K project which (he feels) fail to meet the guidelines set by this encyclopedia for deletion. That is his prerogative. He appears to truly want these articles deleted, so I can't see how this is a POINTy nomination. You may disagree with the nominations. Please do so vigoruously. Or better yet, find independent sources for the articles in question. Give me an independent source asserting notability and I will fight with you. Until then, please assume good faith and refrain from attacking the nominator. Protonk (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seconding this sentiment. I say that this article is worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. Lonesoldier 21:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonesoldier (talk • contribs)
Based on what reasoning? Could you please find one independent reference for this article to demonstrate notability? --Craw-daddy | T | 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Primary sources are generally acceptable for fictional works. Given the popularity and scope of Warhammer universe, this should be kept, albeit with appropriate cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable third-party sources. --Carnildo (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit and Merge This could be combined into the article "Vehicles of the Tau Empire", which could also be edited and both pages merged into the article "Tau Empire (Warhammer 40,000)" or be turned into a subpage thereof. While I agree that the article is in serious need of editing, total deletion is not the answer here, as it makes ALL of the information unavailable, not just the irrelevant or inconsequential parts. Also, carefully consider the motivation behind this article's nomination for deletion. Allemandtando made several Warhammer-related articles into unusable stubs, and when others reverted them back, he put the articles up for deletion. He seems to have some sort of grudge on fiction of any sort, going by what he has been deleting lately, and Warhammer is just one of his victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.40.183.144 (talk) 20:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/Merge into another article, then delete Allow ample time (Say a month) to allow such material to be transferred off Wikipedia or to another Wikipedia Article for consolidation. That way, the material can be properly reverted and kept intact elsewhere. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me less than 10 minutes, and I didn't even know the right address to the 40k 'pedia with the correct license. How was this going to take a month? Protonk (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 'not notable' argument is inconsistent with standards of notability observed elsewhere on Wikipedia, with articles such as Defiant_class_starship, Beholder, Brooke_Davis and Light_Saber not flagged for notability, let alone deletion. Nominator has displayed animosity toward members of Games Workshop-related forums and has deliberately antagonised them, suggesting personal issues with the topic unrelated to its suitability for inclusion on wikipedia. Recommend editing article to meet quality standards or merging with another article as appropriate. --80.42.240.7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC) — 80.42.240.7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
the Light saber article is actually the remains of this and light saber combat which was also culled and merged. You'll notice that the article IS still tagged and its notability issues are addressed by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the source. So I'm really not sure why you mention it. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that would be obvious, since I mention above that I welcome editing and merging of the article to meet wikipedia standards. Perhaps you could explain why you nominated this article for deletion, but not any of those above? Do you have a personal issue with the topic or its fans? Incidentally, one does not use an apostrophe when using 'its' in the possessive sense, let me fix that for you. -80.42.240.7 (talk)
There are only so many hours in the day! I am concentrating on one domain area. This area came to my attention when someone mentioned it to me. There are 100s of articles here that should not exist - it is entirely unrealistic to expect ME to notice them all! --Allemandtando (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which confirms the impression that your standards of 'notability' are substantially different from those of the average wikipedian, thank you. -80.42.240.7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So why Warhammer 40K instead of the numerous and blatant violations done by The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, South Park, Futurama, Star Trek's numerous incarnations, and Babylon 5, namely the numerous Episode Articles. This article is peanuts compared to the massive Wikipedia:Television episodes violations these shows have.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then Nominate them. Other stuff exists. The afd is about THIS article. If you mean to use these articles as an example of how the nominator's idea of notability is outside the norm, I invite you to look at how many simpsons articles are substantiated by independent sources. That is the critical point. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one guy - someone mentioned problems at AN/I - I had a look and realised that the wikiproject for this area seems to have died six months ago. I decided to have a go at clean-up because nobody was doing it. Are we now saying that editors cannot concentrate on trying to clean up one particular area unless they at the same time try to clean up ALL areas? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS --Allemandtando (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have completely misunderstood the point of those examples. -80.42.240.7 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "standards for notability" used by the nominator are in agreement with Wikipedia's explicit notability guideline. You're welcome to disagree with it, or claim it does not match concensus, but I reccomend you argue for policy/guideline changes there, not here. -Verdatum (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki then delete. Lexicanum is the perfect place for this. --86.88.18.236 (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
actually it's not - their licence is incomptable with ours. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you could clarify Allemandtando, what do you recommend be done with it, if not transwiki to lexicanum? -80.42.240.7 (talk)
transwiki to the wikia warhammer 40k site - they have a license that matches ours. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make no further replies here as all of the IP questions are being co-ordinated offsite to try and badge me.--Allemandtando (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that make the points they raise invalid? For that matter, how do you know about this 'coordination'? Is it not the case that you've been antagonising Games Workshop fans on their own forums, as well as vandalising wikipedia articles on the topic? -80.42.240.7 (talk)
*Transwiki then delete I find it interesting that during the beginning of your editing, you had various respected editors whom you consorted with previously resort to reverting articles into stubs rather than opening dialog with the people who you are arguing with. Regardless, this article should not be deleted since the transwiki process was jumpstarted yesterday, a day before you nominated almost eight articles for deletion. 141.117.181.141 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)— 141.117.181.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You think too highly of yourself. The fact that the vandalism was happening was noted in several 40K areas of the internet, but nobody is targeting YOU. You get defensive because enough separate people saw what you had done. I'm not logged in now because I don't remember my password (stored at home) but my username is GameJunkieJim, and I've been on wikipedia for years. But coordinated is a strong term anyway. Especially when you consider you yourself have 3 different logins in order to coordinate attacks on things.72.73.220.147 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making personal attacks. The nominator is referring (as you know) to the 4chan page organizing attacks on his talk page (which ended up totaling over 40k of data, including responses) and the comments on the 4chan page specifically, which don't need to be repeated here. Protonk (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and delete. Article has no independent references to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither source referenced is independent of the creator of the game. Notability is not established by reliable, secondary sources. Transwiki is a perfectly good option. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unreferenced in-universe plot summary. --EEMIV (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki then delete - Simply due to lack of independent sources. No complaints regarding notability. -Rushyo (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire While transwiki-ing is a good idea in theory, the only people who have expressed any interest in actually doing so are making unreasonable requests (a month to transwiki a single article?!), do not understand the licensing issues involved, and in many cases I believe are purposely disrupting the encyclopedia in retaliation for what they perceive as a personal affront. If a serious editor volunteers to transwiki to the WH40K wikia, I would change my vote to transwiki and delete. But given the caliber of the people volunteering to transwiki, I do not believe it to be anything but a stalling tactic. (Also, I will not be responding to any of the 4channers here, because when I did previous interact with one of them, he turned around and bragged on 4chan about how he had successfully trolled me. Fool me once, shame on me, etc.) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwikied There is already an article on the subject so the current WP article went into the talk page here. *stretch* That was hard. Almost took me a month to do. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit and Merge I think the notability argument needs to be clarified a little here. The game itself passes the test easily. But information about the game that is referenced by publications outside of the creating body could be summed up in a single page or a handful of pages. It is not the sort of thing that generates a lot of outside publications because of how Games Workshop handles its own Intellectual Property. That is not a comment on its notability. This is does not effect 40k alone. Warmachine would be a single (short) entry if we applied the same policy there. So would the vast majority of fictional settings, regardless of their scope. Notability should not have the same definition when applied to fictional material as it does when applied to nonfictional material. The way outside sources address fictional ideas is very different. I think this section could probably be merged with a larger section on the Tau. That would be easier to defend, since it is easier to support the idea of notability for the Tau in general given Fire Warrior and other media that has expanded the background beyond the tabletop game.
  • Keep Unless we can get a verification for a Transwiki, the article should be kept as-is. The article is useful. I would say that the language could be edited a little to fit the wiki context better though.
  • If that route is chosen, I think the information also needs to be transferred to the Lexicanum entry. I am not sure why the license is relevant to this question, and that was not explained above. This information is part of GW's IP. Using it to bolster the content of an openly ad-supported page might not fly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.110.123 (talk) 00:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If what? That isn't our problem. The content is moved to a wiki whose license is compatible. And I certainly hope none of GW's IP is here. That would mean that content on this page violates copyright. the content on this page is SUPPOSED to be property of the contributors and licensed under the GFDL. That license forbids copying the material to certain other projects. I'm not a lawyer, but I assure you it isn't trivial. And frankly it isn't up to you to decide whether or not to delete this article. We are not required to transwiki anything prior to deletion (and an admin would probably userify this article for transwiki after, anyway). If the page violates policy, it will be deleted at the end of the AfD, regardless of whether or not it has been transcribed to your satisfaction. Protonk (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Requirement" has nothing to do with it, nor does the "satisfaction" of any one user. It is not up to individual users whether or not to delete or to transwiki. Wikipedia is supposed to be about information. It works best when users keep that in mind rather than indulging their egos about what should or should not be included. The way the IP is used on wikipedia falls within the bounds of fair use under GW's own IP guidelines. That may not be true for wikia or other ad-supported sites. So it is a little irresponsible to be suggesting that as an alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.206.92 (talk) 22:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hammerwiki shares the same license as wikipedia. Furthermore, if the intellectual property of Games Workshop exists on this or any 40K page in any form, it needs to be removed (with the exception of images and quotes covered by fair use). The content of this article should be property of the user creating it and licensed freely through the GFDL. As such, as long as what is on this page is proper, it is proper to be on hammerwiki. And this AfD is not an indulgence of anyone's ego. You may feel that wikipedia is all about collecting information without limit. If you feel strongly, please discuss it in WT:N. Our guidelines can be change and will change with community consensus. That being said, the current set of guidelines dictate that articles which are unable to establish notability from reliable, independent sources should be deleted. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - no reliabe sources to establish encyclopedic notability. Which is to bad, cause it seems pretty cool article, otherwise. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of independent sources, a lot of this content has been presented in more than one format. It exists within the tabletop game and background of Warhammer, but also within the content and background of Fire Warrior published by THQ. It is more difficult to assess how independent that is because the fictional setting is the IP of Games Workshop, but it is possible for users to become aware of it through many different paths. It is certainly fictional, but it is a fictional setting that has had exposure outside of its original context. If you search wikipedia for entries about Lord of the Rings, you will find dozens of pages about fictional concepts within that setting. What we have here is essentially the same thing, so I do not believe it is consistent with existing policy to remove it outright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.206.92 (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but you understand that (using your example) lords of the rings has been critiqued and reviewed by a multitude of reliable sources independent of the text - from books on literature to film studies books to magazine articles to magazines that explore literature. we must be talking thousands of sources that are not connected to the source or the publisher. we could literally put thousands of 3rd party sources to each and every lord of the rings articles? Would you agree (and this is a straight forward question) that there is difference between the level of coverage between the two? The other thing is (and again it's a straight question) - if you know of any notable 3rd party coverage of this subject - could you tell us? because if it exists, then I'll pull my nomination - no questions asked (two sources would be better... and it still needs clean-up :-) ) --Allemandtando (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lord of the Rings is notable. "Rhûn", however, is not. "Gothmog" is not. Not under the strict definition being applied here. They are minor fictional entities within a fictional setting. Wikipedia retains independent pages for them because wikipedia is dedicated to providing well-organized background information about a larger entity that "is" notable. You can not put independent sources for each and every one of them, because many have only ever been analyzed as part of something else. They have no notability except as part of something else. That is also the case here. On the other hand, I can with enough searching find a review or an article about the game "Fire Warrior" or "Dawn of War" that will contain a passing analysis of the weapons used by the Tau described here, since they are the weapons found in the game. It won't be particularly useful to the article itself, but it would be a 3rd-party source. I think we should be honest here. The only reason this is seperate from the main Tau:Empire page is that it was easier for someone to organize by shifting it. And the only reason the Tau:Empire page is seperate from the 40k page is that the main page had grown too large. At some point we are not discussing a question of notability, but of how much information is appropriate to include. And if we include it, how should it be displayed? This is not a question of fame. If it were, wikipedia would not be populated by thousands of pages relating to real but largely irrelevant things. Notability is not just a measure of fame, but of how an idea may be approached. If you can come upon the same fictional idea from many different directions, you will seek information from those other contexts, and the idea is thus notable, as with Lord of the Rings. And in the case of this Warhammer 40k stuff, you have the background from the tabletop game coexisting with the spin-offs into computer gaming and literature. The only hitch is that they aren't exactly third-party given how GW maintains its license. But if that is far enough remove, all we need do is reference the games Fire Warrior and Dawn of War, and the books Fire Warrior, For the Emperor, and Kill Team, or any independent review of such. As I said earlier, I don't think this page should be seperate. But I do think it should be merged into a new heading under the main Tau page. Since Warhammer 40k is about war, the information about weapons is really the most notable aspect we can include. If someone plays Tau in Dawn of War, they may be curious about how those weapons are supposed to work. If Dawn of War was the only place those weapons were found, the idea would not be notable. But since they came from a larger and older setting, we have a sort of notability simply due to scope.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.110.123 (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 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. As this discussion has shown, there is clear wikipedic interest and effort regarding this article. Sincerely, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- more notable than a LOT of other articles. Or would you delete any of the various Wiki entries on video games that exist, or perhaps board games? How about Dungeons & Dragons? Oh, you mean they're notable too? I thought as much. Kuroji (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warhammer 40,000 is notable. Dungeons & Dragons is notable. What isn't notable is a detailed listing of the game mechanics, and that's what's being discussed for deletion here. --Carnildo (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. Although the subject is significantly lacking in notability outside of the Warhammer 40,000 series, this may as well be transwikied off Wikipedia to one of the Wikias where this level of detail is appropriate. -- Sabre (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or come up with even one reliable source to even attempt to demonstrate a teensy shred of notability here. Unlikely. HiDrNick! 00:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Excessively detailed, in-universe information which has no real-world significance. Wikipedia is not a fan site. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has no non games workshop sources and deleting this article will inrage sevral thousands of people. Also, deleting this article could be considered censorship of something that dosn't break any of the wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.84.34 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 7 July 2008
    Textbook example of a reason not to keep. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens and Le Grand Roi. However, I would not object to have this page and Vehicles of the Tau Empire merged into a general Tau page. Check that, these pages would be far too long to merge. GlassCobra 22:41, 8 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/Weapons_and_equipment_of_the_Tau_Empire_(Warhammer_40,000)&oldid=1144823161"