Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind

: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. After ten days on AfD and extensive discussion, this article about a fictional character in a roleplaying game (the content about a real-world historical title that was briefly inserted has not stuck) is still only sourced to three of the game's rulebooks. This means that it fails WP:N, a guideline according to which the topic of an article must generally have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In view of this, the arguments of the minority of editors advocating a "keep" would have to be persuasive indeed to prevent deletion. That, they are not. With the notable exception of DGG, who makes an interesting WP:SS argument (although one that would amount to inherited notability, which I think is not generally accepted), they either amount to WP:WAX or otherwise fail to address the issue of the specific sourcing requirements of WP:N. I'm therefore required per WP:DGFA to discount most "keep" opinions and to find that we have a consensus to delete.  Sandstein  17:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

=[[Emperor of Mankind]]=

{{ns:0|F}}

:{{la|Emperor of Mankind}} ([{{fullurl:Emperor of Mankind|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emperor of Mankind}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(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)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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! <Grossly uncivil comment removed. — Satori Son> ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.140.1 (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC) — 66.32.140.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • 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)

::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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete This article does not demonstrate notability in the real world. --Phirazo 12:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It is notable to people in the real world. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete in-universe, nn fancruft. Eusebeus (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please note WP:JNN and Wikipedia:Do not call things cruft. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to [http://stats.grok.se/en/200805/Emperor%20of%20Mankind a real-world audience], consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emperor_of_Mankind&action=history 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 [http://books.google.com/books?id=eUOH3speFzoC&pg=PA144&dq=Emperor+of+Mankind&ei=4aF-SMW-Aoj2jgGSnKXQCA&sig=ACfU3U02sM8V2gNoxz_ydedv98Id84vptw Genghis Khan], [http://books.google.com/books?id=ztwPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA421&dq=Emperor+of+Mankind&ei=4aF-SMW-Aoj2jgGSnKXQCA a Chinese emperor], a [http://books.google.com/books?id=646pRr73mOEC&pg=PT410&dq=Emperor+of+Mankind&ei=4aF-SMW-Aoj2jgGSnKXQCA&sig=ACfU3U1tGVnxVUDKSAeAnoxmTS0qrH1uRQ#PPT410,M1 fictional emperor], [http://books.google.com/books?id=wHVGrxdt2X4C&pg=PA452&dq=Emperor+of+Mankind&ei=4aF-SMW-Aoj2jgGSnKXQCA&sig=ACfU3U3RMiQ845avOu_a3Y5ovAfzwa9iwA 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Please elaborate further. You have not yet convinced me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you open-minded to changing your stance? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not a compelling argument. You provide no basis for your claims. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • That is not a logical reply, given [http://books.google.com/books?id=ztwPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA421&dq=Emperor+of+Mankind&ei=CcN-SPehH6CmigGLj-DRCA], [http://books.google.com/books?id=eUOH3speFzoC&pg=PA144&dq=Emperor+of+Mankind&ei=CcN-SPehH6CmigGLj-DRCA&sig=ACfU3U02sM8V2gNoxz_ydedv98Id84vptw], etc. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Emperor_of_Mankind 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)
  • 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • (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)
  • 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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 CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 12:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

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

I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emperor_of_Mankind&diff=226274029&oldid=225270884 begun] the new version and will continue a bit later. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • 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. Also before anyone quotes WP:OTHERSTUFF to me, I am well aware of it and don't find it particularly persuasive. -- Gudeldar (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=%22Emperor+of+Mankind%22+&btnG=Search A google scholar search for this exact term] does not appear to support the usage you have adduced, except in those few (4) neologist instances. Could you please provide more specific references (& good on you to provide page numbers) from reputable scholarly sources so we can judge whether this usage is generally accepted in the context of the reification of Asian kingship? For example, (source 2) to translate Genghis Khan as "Emperor of Mankind" is simply erroneous, indeed baffling. A google search of "Ghenghis Khan" with "Emperor of Mankind" (removing, lol, Warhammer of course) produces [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=NVs&q=Genghis+Khan+%22Emperor+of+Mankind%22+-Warhammer&btnG=Search all of six Ghits]. Source 4 (supporting the claim that the title is used in the context of Christianity) is an extraordinary extrapolation to all of Christian doctrine of a single passage (that you have linked to, viz. I recognise my Lord, the king of kings and the emperor of mankind) uttered in translation in the context of a solitary martyrological instance. Thus, as it stands and based on the referenced material provided, the opening phrase Emperor of Mankind is a title used by a number of Asian emperors and deities is simply false and the other uses are, at best, idiosyncratic. Wikipedia is here to reflect, not create. Thus, any JSTOR or other scholarly material that you can dig up to flesh out these (in my view) inadequately referenced assertions would be highly useful. I salute your desire to save articles, but the gussying up of an infrequent neologism and providing it with the semblance of academic credibility, when in fact it has none, is not the way to go about it. Eusebeus (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Certainly well sourced now, although could use a rewrite to move a bit farther from the WH 40K article it was. Hobit (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure why this has been added to Japan-related deletions... It would appear to me from what I have read of the arguments here (admittedly, not all of them), that there are two sides here: the first claims there is no real-life relevance to this boardgame character; the other one coming up with some far-fetched connections to supposed Asian kingship titles in order to design a vehicle that will carry this article along. I suggest you two sides stop bickering and pour yourselves some undiluted wine (an idiom I only just now pulled from my mothertounge, I hope you understand what I mean): This has nothing whatsoever to do with Asia. The argument here is, whether the character in question is important enough in the W4K universe to be notable, and further on, whether the W4K universe itself is notable enough to have articles regarding important figureheads in it. I have never played the game, nor do I have any real intention to do so in the future, but from what I gather from the arguments above, this guy is pretty important in the W4K universe. So, my suggestion would be for the keepers to stop trying to candy-wrap this into Asian sociology and present a case regarding the notability of W4K as such. And to the deleters, present a case that this guy is not notable in the W4K universe, or else that W4K itself can reasonably be ignored on a whole. Please leave Asian rulers out of this - the final article (if it stays) should be focused on W4K, with a did-you-know sidepoint regarding historic Emperors of Mankind. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Relisting comment: Now that the content about the fictional character has been prepended with content about an unrelated historical title, we have more options to discuss, such as whether the article should be kept as is, deleted altogether, reduced to either of the two topics or split into two articles.  Sandstein  19:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • :If Le Roi would like to make an article about an entirely unrelated subject that shares a name, he's free to do so. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, appears to have some coverage in WP:V sources, though admittedly more work needs to be done. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • :Which ones? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into a List of Warhammer 40000 characters 70.55.88.21 (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Very Weak Keep although perhaps to save the article other occurances of "Emperor of Mankind" that do not apply to the Warhammer world should be found and incorporated into the article. I'm sure the term has been used in places that aren't 40K and sources could be found for that. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The central characters in major games are appropriate for separate breakout articles. The notability is of the game overall, and the discussion of the game is best handled by separate articles on the major figures. Its merely a question of length and style, not article notability. DGG (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • :So, what reliable sources are you going to use to write this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If a topic is notable, then there is no need to delete an article on the topic. If it lacks reliable sources, all we need to do is to try to find them. -- Taku (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Notability is shown through secondary sources. The article still does not cite any. --Phirazo 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP If the decision to remove this article is made then by example each article on a fictional character in a fictional universe should also be removed under the same principle.Kagegod (talk) 01:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:ALLORNOTHING. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • All articles on fictional characters that do not have secondary sources that demonstrate real-world notability should be deleted. --Phirazo 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) - this is a minor character who is only of questionable notability within warhammer. Outside of warhammer, no real world notability is established nor claimed. Furthermore the article has zero independent sources --T-rex 14:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or redirect Redirect target would be to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) or some future, unrelated article on emperors. The sources provided for the article are not independent of the game maker. the subject of the article is a fictional character heading a fictional faction in Warhammer 40K (just for some clarification). If the title "Emperor of Mankind" has been claimed by humans (middle kingdom, japan, ghengis khan, etc), that is irrelevant. We would NOT merge this article into an article such as Emperor of Japan on the basis that the japanese emperors used to claim divinity and sovereignty over all mankind. We would not fill this article with duplicated content from various articles on emperors who have claimed to be rulers of all mankind. this deletion debate covers only the subject and article at hand. the creation of an article about emperors is independent of this discussion. That would be like protesting the deletion of Ork (Warhammer 40,000) on the basis of other fictional Orc's. Either way, this article does not meet the guidelines for notability. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I missed it my first run through, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FEmperor_of_Mankind&diff=226283558&oldid=226279741 this comment] by Eusebeus explicitly lays out the case against treating this as a possible merger with an article about emperors IRL. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic, thus failing WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If an article can be written on real-world Emperors of Mankind, and not the 40k one, then it can be written after this article is deleted. --Phirazo 17:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It wold be much wiser to just boldly rewrite over this article as there's no reason for outright deletion here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per ChrisCunningham, Protonk and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:PERNOM. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Additional explanation: I also note that the "new" version by Le Grand Roi, that purported to be dealing nominally with the real-world title, was actually even worse than the original. Pure WP:COATRACK. Nominally about a real-world thing, but then in fact going on and on about the Warhammer trivia in its entirety. No way. Ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing in non-trivial reliable secondary sources, fails WP:NOTE. No real-world notability. The rewritten version is just a pretty blatant piece of coatracking. FatherJack92 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 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.