Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adeptus Arbites (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeptus Arbites

Article was nominated a month ago for relying on primary sources, for providing no real-world context, and for being a

WP:PLOT rehash. Nearly a month after the "no consensus" result, nothing has changed. -- JediLofty ^{Talk to me}_{Follow me} 15:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 19:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 19:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep.
Ben Quadinaros and Sora Bulq. -- DataSnake _{Call me} 17:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. While it's true that articles can use primary sources for some material, there are no sources independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Finally, it should be noted that this article has already been transwikied to the WH40 wikia, see here (and scroll down the list to find it). --Craw-daddy | T | 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep, or merge References seem to be present outside the game, though not independent ones. Though this is an important game, Star Wars isn't a relevant precedent--it is much more culturally important and has an immensely greater secondary literature (if anyone does try to delete them as Crawdaddy suggest I do not think they will succeed, though some might well be merged). We should not be handling this in equivalent detail until there is at least some such literature. DGG (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to disagree with you there. Aside from CS Goto's contributions, the Black Library books are AT LEAST on a par with most Star Wars novels. And regarding "other stuff exists", that wasn't really my point. The Star Wars novels are just that, secondary literature expanding the content of a primary source, just like the Black Library novels. Whether the Star Wars movies are more popular than the Warhammer 40,000 tabletop game is not really the point, as the issue in either case is "expanded universe" type materials. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 00:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Star Wars novels are not "secondary literature". They are officially licensed from LucasArts. Likewise all the Star Wars encyclopedias et cetera. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Likewise, Black Library publications are approved by Games Workshop. I don't quite see the difference here. -- DataSnake _{my talk} 13:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no difference. Star Wars articles sourced entirely to LucasArts-licensed works should also be deleted; their current existence is not an endorsement of their sourcing, and thus the argument that this page should exist because those do holds no weight. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient material which isn't in-universe or gameguide for this to stand as a separate article from
Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with very little real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I voted to keep weakly last time on the basis of a shred of possible out of universe coverage (Judge Dredd copyright issues). On reflection, any material that shows up about that is better summarized and cited in the Games Workshop article. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 19 September 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.