Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum

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 Void. This AfD was started by a sockpuppet of a banned user. I'll undelete the article as if this AfD never happened. The result of this AfD should not be used to influence a possible new AfD in either direction. Relisting this article can happen accordingly immediately, if anyone feels the need. Fram (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. None of those wanting to keep offered any specific argument why this article is about a notable subject. One adresses the nominator, one claims that it meets some undiclosed criteria for inclusion, one claims that a rewrite would solve the notability problem without adressing how, and the final one uses a different definition of notability plus a personal essay, but no verifiable independent reliable sources have been provided to indicate such notability or importance. Fram (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Officio Assassinorum

No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. Allemandtando (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reason to keep. Discuss the nomination, not the nominator. Protonk (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly states that it is a fictional element, and meets those criteria for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will seem repetitive to anyone reading all these 40k deletion discussions, but I can't find a single guideline or policy that mirrors what you are arguing. The two proposed guidelines for fiction and games (WP:FICT and WP:TOYS) both explicitly state that notability comes from discussion in secondary sourcing and that notability is not inherited from the parent project. WP:GNG states an expectation for secondary sourcing as a requisite for notability as well. If I am missing a specific guideline that says what you are saying, please let me know. Protonk (talk) 14:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to demonstrate out of universe notability. Fails WP:TOYS --T-rex 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good portion of the sourcing deals with the assasins associated with each temple, rather than the temple as a whole. Even if we accept that all sources presented are reliable and independent, the material here might only be sufficient to merit a merge into the imperial army article. However, mentioning a fictional element in a novel is not the same as mentioning it in a secondary source. Plenty of reliable secondary sources exist discussing elements of fiction. Failure to find one might be indicative of something. Protonk (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Take this and you'll need to take hundreds of similar articles across multiple fandoms. Maybe you should petition the powers that be for a harsher notability policy, including the ability to speedy delete offenders. Otherwise, you'll just end up clogging the system or boxing against a whirlwind. Wikipedia is toothless to prevent the existence of this kind of pointless trivia, and is hopelessly mired in its own soft-touch ideology when a sledgehammer is required. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing compels us to delete every like article. Presumably those of us who vote delete do so on the basis of the article's notability, not its type. Even if we DO vote on type, the sheer volume of articles prevents us from nominating everything. Speedy delete would be unfair to the creators, as the question of notability (except where patently unasserted) is one of degree. AfD provides a good venue for discussion and introduction of new sources. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should endeavor to spare the feelings of the poor article writers who violate the notability guidelines. Articles on Warhammer 40,000 should be limited to one article about the game itself, and maybe one for each of the actual armies thereof. Anything else is pandering to the fanbase, and should be summarily deleted or transwikiped to the Lexicanium. We need more active administration of policy, as well as an avenue for deletions of obvious fancruft that bypasses AfD and ProD. We tried democracy, it failed. It's time to try tyranny. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's one view. There actually is an ongoing discussion (somewhere) to make a CSD category for pages that have no sources. I'm not really fired up either way, so I haven't contributed, but if you are passionate you should weigh in on one side there. And fairness isn't about salving feelings. The tools of speedy deletion are known primarily to those familiar with the bureaucracy, rather than those contributing. Each step the deletion process takes to be removed from the purview of IP and intermittent editors is a step away from broad participation. Those are my feelings. We may not share them. We do, however, share a passion for quality and keeping notable articles. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewriting can save this article, if it only violates the notability guidelines. AlmondManTwo (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But unless that rewrite introduces some reliable, independent source asserting notability, policy compels us to to delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. Notability isn't demonstrated by references independent of Games Workshop (and its subsidiaries). Fails WP:WAF and some of the external links could be violating WP:SPAM by linking directly to GW's product pages for the miniatures in question. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:05, 9 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. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:01, 9 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.