Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 08:32, 7 February 2023

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. Black Kite 22:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Kaela Mensha Khaine

Kaela Mensha Khaine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article fails WP:SOURCES by relying on primary sources. Article was set to redirect to Eldar (Warhammer 40,000), but has been restored - deleting the article would prevent this happening again. -- JediLofty _{Follow me} 09:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that this character is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Could not be more notable. Well sourced and also should be kept via the 5 pillars Testmasterflex (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It is not well sourced at all - it relies on Games Workshop material, which counts as Primary Sources. If it's so notable, I'm sure that lots of reliable sources will be added to the article before this AfD is completed. -- JediLofty _{Follow me} 08:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No references independent of Games Workshop to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- excessively lengthy plot summary with no references outside of Games Workshop. Reyk _YO! 10:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Without coverage in reliable sources, it is just an unnecessary plot summary. TTN (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• This article should be kept due to coverage in a published encyclopedia. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Does it have any real-world information though, which is what matters for fiction articles? – sgeureka 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • What do you mean by "real-world information"? --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment- that encyclopedia is a primary source. That is, it's a source that is too closely associated with the subject to confer notability. For that you need reliable, independent sources (for example newspaper articles, scientific papers, critical reviews etc). This is one of our most important policies. If we didn't demand proper secondary sources, Misplaced Pages could become swamped with articles on all sorts of rubbish. Every blog, incoherent conspiracy theory, dodgy youtube video and adolescent fanfic would end up here and that would be a Very Bad Thing. That's not to say primary sources are useless. They can be invaluable in sourcing facts for the article and fleshing it out, once notability is established by other means. If primary sources are all you've got, however, the article will not meet WP:N. Reyk _YO! 08:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
    • This source is published and not a youtube video made by fans. --Elisabeth Rogan (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Doctorfluffy. It is doubtful that a decent article (i.e. one that doesn't violate any policies and guidelines) could ever be made out of this. – sgeureka 08:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence of notability in the real world, as would be established by coverage in independent third-party sources. In-game plot device. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. More suitable to a specialist wiki. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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.