Khorne

Khorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the khaos gods that influences some of the in-universe game mechanics included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with his other chaos gods, none of these items have any real world notability, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past. In addition, Khorne is already discussed in sufficient detail in a more suitable umbrella article. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I swear that I read some metal mag in the 80s which devoted some time to exploring the subject, but in general the pantheons of random fantasy universes are sourced entirely to their creators and have no notability outwith getting Bolt Thrower songs named after them. Consolidation to a single article will reduce WP's fancruft burden and act as an incubator if anyone ever does find reliable secondary sources which cover them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bolthammer thing is mentioned in one of the other articles on this subject (I'm struggling to remember which one because many of the warhammer articles repeat the same thing across 10 or 20 articles). --Allemandtando (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Games Workshop or similar along with all the other GW cruft.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make my comment more clear. I stumbled across the horde of Games Workshop stuff on Wikipedia accidentaly recently, not having played Games Workshop in 15 years. On looking at several articles, it rapidly became clear to me that the vast majority of them have no real world significance and no independent sources. Without these, there are no grounds for keeping around 90% of the articles involved, although given their probable popularity as search terms, a redirect might be more useful than a delete.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, nobody is proposing that these not be left as redirects. This is pretty standard for AfDs where the title is a valid reference to a parent subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I personally find having seperate articles is fine, because I hate having to look at somthing that I don't want to, just to find somthing really small on it. -Kibakamaru talk —Preceding comment was added at 17:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a good article. It gave me the information I was looking for. Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia? Why destroy it? 64.131.242.189 (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - What's wrong with having fictional content on Wikipedia? We have plenty more, deleting one article isn't going to make a big difference. 66.63.86.156 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:23, 10 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! 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you offer any reliable third-party references to write this article, or are you going to continue linking essays, making irrelevant links to broadly-worded statements of principle, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why don't you do so instead of continuing linking essays, making irrelevant links to broadly-worded statements of principle, and just generally gumming up the works uselessly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, the WH editors snuck in a fan wiki, then all ran off to a fan wiki. What's left hasn't seen a lot of scrutiny, and is largely unrecoverable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Are there any independent sources for the Hobbit entry? Delete that? No. This is still an important entry that needs to stay. If it is to be deleted, then there are a lot more that need to be deleted as well that I think also add value to WP. 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RenegadeMinds (talk • contribs)

There are currently 6 independent reliable sources in the hobbit article. Are you really claiming that it would be difficult to find 100s of others to go in that article? really? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24.42.68.128 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A few weeks ago, I looked up Warhammer 40K on wikipedia after stumbling across various references to it elsewhere over time. I spent several pleasurable and informative hours reading through the various Wikipedia entries on the topic, learning quite a bit about the subject. A few days ago, google directed me back to the Khorne page when I searched for a specific phrase ("Blood for the blood god") that I've been seeing around. I was shocked to discover someone had blanked and redirected the page to the main 40K article.

This makes no sense to me. By all rights, long articles like the main one should be broken down into smaller, more specific and in depth articles. Instead, here, someone is advocating doing the exact opposite - deleting information and cramming whatever is left into what's already a long article. Is this the future of Wikipedia? Less information in fewer, harder to read entries? If so, this will kill a lot of the value and usefulness of this website. I'm not a registered editor, just one of the millions of random people who use Wikipedia as a first line reference and a learning tool. I'm your target audience. I hope my vote counts for something. 24.42.68.128 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]