Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C'tan (2nd nomination)

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. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'tan

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is pure repetition of plot and trivia from the Warhammer 40,000 series articles. It should therefore be deleted. It was also previously nominated for deletion in 2005 and was kept due to many votes which ignored notability and verifiability rules. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As much as I hate articles about fictional, fantasy persons. However this one does list some references, although they are not yet properly footnoted. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but the references listed are primary sources, so they do not establish the notability that I am asking about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear consensus in previous discussion, 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! 19:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above, I clarified it for you. Also, random internet searches mean nothing, and the five pillars in this case support me not you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to notify those who participated in the earlier discussion (from all sides of it) to see if anyone's opinions changed in either direction? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to think that the C'tan have importance in the world I live in. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nom is quite correct in that in the previous AfD, most of the keep arguments were weak at best. A good example is "Keep, article provides important information, why delete it?" Why, because the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. I have never before heard the idea that a second AfD lacks validity if we can't get everyone from the first one back. It has long been accepted that concensus can change Beeblbrox (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That which we can hold in the real world is real world notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? Are you saying that anytime an action figure is made, it is automatically notable? Beeblbrox (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that appears both in text and in toy format is at least notable enough to be added to a list of such characters that the smaller articles can be merged and redirected to. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a miniature was made doesn't mean it's notable. Simply referencing a catalog or price list does nothing to support notability. (After all, that's how Games Workshop makes money, by selling these miniatures.) By your reasoning, since I can hold my TV remote control in my hand, it's notable (after all, my remote control appears in text format in my TV owner's manual too, i.e how to operate it). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges, my friend. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you personally don't agree with WP:N doesn't mean it does not apply here, LeGrand Roi... Unless you'd also like to toss WP:RS out the window as well. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a big effort underway to reform it as the policy as is clearly lacks consensus (see the talk page, and as also evidenced by alternate proposals and a whole category of editors). --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki and delete. There are no independent references (i.e. not associated with Games Workshop or its affiliates or "official material") to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 22:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all primary sources - no 3rd party coverage that is beyond the trivial, I've been working extensively in this area and the material simply doesn't exist. This is cruft for all of those reasons and should be deleted as such. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. If you are willing to change your username from User:Killerofcruft, please also consider disusing that unconstructive word, as well. Thank you. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the third time you've linked me to that essay - do you think I missed it the first two? the answer is still the same - NO. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to wander too far off topic, but does anyone else see the irony in trying to make someone follow the advice of an essay while at the same time openly disregarding an established editing guideline? Beeblbrox (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to throw "cruft" under the euphemism treadmill will only result in another word that means the same thing. --Phirazo 03:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources that show notability in the real world. --Phirazo 21:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The most important content can be moved into the Necrons article (whose notability is also debatable), or summarised in a "List of major characters in Warhammer 40000" or something similar. Lots of details that have little relevance to the vast majority of people and stink of original research, synthesis and a complete lack of secondary sources. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire content of the article is hopelessly and irredeemably in-universe and sourced solely to primary sources (which is unsurprising given Games Workshop's IP policy). Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. The C'Tan are largely a piece of background material in the Tau storyline and as such real-world notability is basically nonexistent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, no evidence of real world notability has been shown. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Warhammer has an extensive backstory that is of interest to anybody attempting to research the game. If this article is not notable enough to be keep on here the latest version of it should be moved to the Warhammer 40,000 wiki and linked to from the main Warhammer article before it is deleted Switchbreak (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with the other Warhammer AfD's, WP:GNG provides a clear guide as to which pages are to be maintained. If the subject is covered in significant detail in independent sources, it is presumed to be notable (note for the curious, the codexes, works of fiction and White Dwarf magazine are all published by games workshop). This AfD is not the forum for debate on WP:N. Extraneous and novel methods of determining "notability" that bear no resemblance to the consensus view don't seem very persuasive to me. The fact that the article fails to abide by WP:WAF is tangential but indicative of the larger problem of meshing this subject with a real world encyclopedia without some secondary sourcing to anchor it. Protonk (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT as hopelessly unnotable, in-universe cruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article does not assert notability via reliable secondary sources, and is merely repetition of plot and trivia from the Warhammer universe. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Abandoned bit of crap left by fled WH40K editors. Unreferenced, unreferenceable, useless for merging. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:08, 17 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.