Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daemonhunters

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, discounting the last "keep" comment. Sandstein 17:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daemonhunters

No real world references or assertion of notability. Fails WP:RS by relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 14:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is not established through significant coverage in independent third-party sources. The material is significant in the game universe, to the point where multiple novels and the Inquisitor game are based around it, but this can be adequately covered in the articles for the nevels and the game without needing an article on the background itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:38, 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. See also this book, which is similarly spelled and therefore suggests at worst a valid redirect without deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 22:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40k wikia by Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 07:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no adequate assertion of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. Big chunks of the article are either unsourced plot summary or original research. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In theory these are at about the same level of importance as the space marines for the miniature half of the fictional universe (not saying they are, but if we were to make an organizational chart, they would be closer to the top than most of the articles sent to AfD in this batch). If we were to create some guideline for inclusion of fictional subjects, this might be about the level that we would make the cutoff. On the other hand, while they represent a similar level of organization, there don't seem to be too many WH40K specific mentions in independent sources about them. Perhaps a merger into Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000) (The level of organization equal to the space marines in the fictional world distinct from the miniature portion)? Protonk (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion when the article is notable to a real world audience and has sufficient coverage for a paperless encyclopedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Im certainly not doin'it the right way, with the correct templates and everything, but in my opinion, even if a book is the worst ever wrote, even if a webpage is totally useless, only the NAZIS BURN BOOKS, and to me, an online encyclopedia is like a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.191.132 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 August 2008 — 90.4.191.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hmmm, I was wondering how long it would take until one of these AfDs would allow the invocation of Godwin's Law. Sigh... --Craw-daddy | T | 23:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, if you look at Book burning, you will see that unfortunately more than just Nazis have burned books throughout history. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:04, 24 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.