Emperor of Mankind

Emperor of Mankind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot elements from the Warhammer 40,000 game articles. As such, it is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complaints you have raised only seem to require a revision of the article, not a deletion. The Emperor is a very important character in the Warhammer 40k Universe. Deletion would be rash and injudicious. Sfrostee 00:33, 13 July 2008

Lack of notability is fatal to an article, not the common cold. It would be rash to keep articles with no assertion of notability and no potential for future notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:V and seems to pass WP:N. Article has been around for a long time and has been worked on by many people. I can see that it could be written better, but AfD for deletion?... nah!--Pmedema (talk) 19:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah! Let's delete it! Who cares that it's the single most important character in the Imperium. Who cares that it's the central to the plot and the entire 40k Universe, without which, the game/universe would collapse in on itself! Hooray for ignorance and being a giant douche! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.140.1 (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

• I know zilch about this game, but it seems to me that the central character in such a major game is a keep. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep requires some kind of evidence that it is notable, such as a link to creator commentary, or an article on the character and how it was designed. If it has none of those things, it isn't notable, no matter how "important". Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The term gets 2,390,000 Google hits and all seem to refer to this very character. Of course, I didn't check all the pages, but I did scroll down a few pages and pretty much all I saw relate back to Warhammer 40,000. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and delete. No demonstration of notability through sources independent of Games Workshop (or its subsidiaries). Don't forget about the OR there too (i.e. "... the character seems heavily influenced by ..." if true, find a source that says this, don't conclude it for yourself). --Craw-daddy | T | 12:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article does not demonstrate notability in the real world. --Phirazo 12:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is notable to people in the real world. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in-universe, nn fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note WP:JNN and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:03, 16 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 to Wikipedia editors) and What Wikipedia is. The article includes out of universe information by acknowledging the influence from Dune (although of course that claim does need to be cited) and does have a reference section. Thus, I believe the article has Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. Now, whether or not we think an article on "Emperor of Mankind" as pertains to Warhammer is worthy of an article, please keep in mind that the title "emperor of mankind" has a larger historic use that in non-Warhammer settings that could be used to write a totally different article altogether, which suggests that this article should not autmatically be a red link. Please consider its use with regards to Genghis Khan, a Chinese emperor, a fictional emperor, another historical context, etc. So, I urge those participating in this discussion to also conisder the potential of a totally revised article that deals with this title in both the fictional and historical contexts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a repetition of plot elements from the Warhammer 40,000 game articles. As such, this fancrap is duplicative, trivial, and should be deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetitious content is merged and redirected without deletion and as I indicated above, there are plenty of sources for use with an article of this title even if the focus is not on Warhammer, which is why deletion would not make sense. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please elaborate further. You have not yet convinced me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you open-minded to changing your stance? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I am open to compelling arguments. If this is a setup for you to once again link to diffs from 2007 then I am not going to continue this discussion - sorry. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The term "emperor of mankind" is a serious hitsorical term used for various Asian monarchies and covered in scholarly books. Therefore, what I am proposing is not outright deleting the article and having a red-link but boldly revising it and as far as any refrences to Warhammer go, limiting that to a small section acknowledging that term is also used elsewhere. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is not a compelling argument. You provide no basis for your claims. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is not a logical reply, given [1], [2], etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Those are the links you should have provided in the first place! Why save them for a second comment???? Anyway, my argument from the other AFD applies here. I don't see why something else sharing the same name as the title of this article is grounds for keeping. The other article can easily be created at Emperor of Mankind (title) or some such. It's not even like any of the articles which link here are using the term in a sense other than Warhammer. Frankly, your argument seems like a thinly veiled attempt to preserve the edit history. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Please re-look at my post directly above your first post in this discussion as I had indeed already posted these links in the first place. Also, preserving the edit history is tremendously useful for RfAs. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (outdent) Please allow me to make sure I understand you. You want to keep this article on a Warhammer 40k topic because the term happens to be used in passing in some history books that have nothing to do with Warhammer 40k and because edit histories are useful for RfAs? I believe AFDs should discuss the content of the article in question. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I am saying that instead of just deleting the article altogether, let's boldly revise it to cover a historical relevant term and have a minor reference to the Warhammer stuff to acknowledge how in addition to be used by Mongol, Chinese, and Japanese emperors as one of their more hyperbolic titles, others have also used the title in works of fiction. As for the edito histories, there's no compelling reason to delete them unless if there is some kind of libelous or copyright violation stuff involved. Otherwise, we are encouraged per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT to go ahead and improve articles in question, which I would be willing to do here, but since it's on AfD, I thought I might as well get some other ideas on how best to do that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe the content of this article has a place on Wikipedia per WP:N and WP:NOT. Since I don't believe the content has a place on Wikipedia, I don't see a reason to preserve it in the edit history of an unrelated/rewritten article or simply hide it as a redirect. The title of this article may be perfectly suitable for another topic after the content is deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lot in edit histories doesn't belong, which is why it's in the edit history and not the main article. It would be much easier to just start working from this article than deleting and starting over when we can accomplish something positive by keeping the edit history public. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wholeheartedly disagree. The purpose of AFDs is to remove content which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. A rewrite over top of an article simply obscures that content. You might be able to convince me that your argument held weight in a broad sense if there was even a shred of salvageable content in the article in question, but in this specific case I don't think there is anything which can be used as the basis for a page on the historical term. If/when the hypothetical article for the title is written, I wouldn't think that even a single line should be dedicated to the Warhammer usage. I generally believe that a list of "In Popular Culture"/"In Fiction"/"Trivia" strongly detracts from the credibility of an otherwise fine article on an academic topic. Once again, it all comes back to the fact that I don't think any of this fancrap has a place on an encyclopedia which strives to be a legitimate resource, and I believe that leaves us at an impasse. Please reply if you like, but, unless you have a new, entirely different argument to present, I don't think this thread is going to lead either one of us to change our opinion. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a character so much as an object, and it's just not one about which someone has seen fit to comment. If Le Roi wants to write an article about an entirely different subject under this name, be my guest, but it doesn't have anything to do with this article or subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no independent reliable sources cover this subject at all (because when it comes down to it the Emperor is only a minor part of the game background) and thus it has no established notability. I must commend Roi in reaching a whole new level of surreality with the "how editors behave in the edit histories of deleted articles is tremendously useful when they request adminship" argument, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break: Beginning revised version that is no longer indended to focus on Warhammer

I have begun the new version and will continue a bit later. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles has made significant improvements to the article since it was first listed in AFD and as such I don't feel that this AFD should apply any more as the original complaints have been addressed. As a side note my vote if it hadn't been for the revision still would have been keep because if Wikipedia is going to delete an article on a central figure in the Warhammer 40k universe it might as well delete all the articles on 40k. To say that this doesn't pass the notability test when there are 1000s of articles that are substantially less notable than this one is absurd. -- 152.1.185.139 (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]