Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Officio Assassinorum

Officio Assassinorum

No assertion of real-world notability. Reliance solely on primary sources regurgitates plot summary ; does not offer, and a search of google and other databases does not yield, any information on critical reception, concept's development, etc. A summary of this concept is already present in another larger umbrella article. Allemandtando (talk) 13:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--SRX^--^Latino Heat 14:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator has a burr under his blanket for Warhammer 40K subjects. L0b0t (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article clearly states that it is a fictional element, and meets those criteria for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to demonstrate out of universe notability. Fails WP:TOYS --T-rex 15:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good portion of the sourcing deals with the assasins associated with each temple, rather than the temple as a whole. Even if we accept that all sources presented are reliable and independent, the material here might only be sufficient to merit a merge into the imperial army article. However, mentioning a fictional element in a novel is not the same as mentioning it in a secondary source. Plenty of reliable secondary sources exist discussing elements of fiction. Failure to find one might be indicative of something. Protonk (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Take this and you'll need to take hundreds of similar articles across multiple fandoms. Maybe you should petition the powers that be for a harsher notability policy, including the ability to speedy delete offenders. Otherwise, you'll just end up clogging the system or boxing against a whirlwind. Wikipedia is toothless to prevent the existence of this kind of pointless trivia, and is hopelessly mired in its own soft-touch ideology when a sledgehammer is required. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing compels us to delete every like article. Presumably those of us who vote delete do so on the basis of the article's notability, not its type. Even if we DO vote on type, the sheer volume of articles prevents us from nominating everything. Speedy delete would be unfair to the creators, as the question of notability (except where patently unasserted) is one of degree. AfD provides a good venue for discussion and introduction of new sources. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rewriting can save this article, if it only violates the notability guidelines. AlmondManTwo (talk)