Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Custodes

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 16:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeptus Custodes

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Appears to be primarily drawn from a single sourcebook (Slaves to Darkness), with an additional smattering of original research to provide an out-of-universe link to the current game universe. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:47, 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! 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minor background characters, no real relevance to the game (only the background setting), not even consistently conceived. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are at least worthy of a merge and redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No article would benefit from a merge of this fanon and speculation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we have any articles that mention this, then there's no reason not to redirect without deleting as more editors and readers believe it worthwhile than a few deletes in some snapshot in time AfD. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - We don't, and we shouldn't. There's precious little in the way of verifiable claims one can make about these even if you were to use fictional works as sources. "The Emperor has some guards. They're a mysterious deus ex machina that looks and acts different every time they appear. The end." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Even that sentence suggests we would at least mention them somewhere and at worst redirect them there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, it's OR anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We can use primary sources for basic referencing, especially if we're saying within a larger article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability from sources independent of the topic. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 23:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion, when it is a notable topic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has no citations to third-party sources, which are required to establish notability of a fictional topic. --EEMIV (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of zero significance to a player of either the miniature or computer game. Of vanishingly little significance to the reader of the fictional works for hire of the 40K universe. Cites no reliable third party sources to establish notablity per the WP:GNG (and given the first two sentences of my rationale AND the restrictive IP policies of games workshop, is unlikely to cite such sources). Delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:38, 22 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.