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. While there is a rough consensus to delete, there doesn't seem to be a consensus about whether there should be a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squig[edit]

Another Warhammer article that fails WP:RS by having no independent sources, instead relying on primary sources. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 13:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Redirect to one of the many Orky articles. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates that the topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to real world notability and coverage in significant enough of sources to indicate wikipedic notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insignificant independent third party coverage. Minor game element with only trivial real-world presence in the form of a limited set of minatures, adequately covered by the existing WH/40K greenskin articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case then there's no reason not redirect without deletion to there. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of this content is of value to the project. A post-deletion redirect is fine with me. Redirecting without an AfD would result in the continued meatpuppet reverts which led to the AfDs in the first place. You know this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's of value to those who created, worked on, and come here to read the article. You know that. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then it's licensed under the GFDL, so they can take it to a project whose editorial policies allow this sort of material, because Wikipedia's policies don't. You link to WP:ATA enough, you know that "It's useful!" is a poor argument. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As I have said somewhere on the talk page of that essay, I do not find "it's useful," "it's interesting," or "I like it" as weak arguments as an encyclopedia should be useful and it attracts readers, contributors, and donors by being interesting and covering topics that these people like. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Orks keep squigs, which are toothy maws on a pair of stubby legs, using them much the way humans use dogs. Nearly all creatures domesticated by orcs are evolved from or are named after squigs, and share their voracious appetite, fanged grin, and disagreeable temperament." Put that in whatever orc/ork article you want, then delete this excessive, unreferenceable crap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling others' volunteer work "crap" is never conducive to a constructive discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A spade's a spade. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can all agree that as a spade is a spade, but we do not agree on what is and is not notable and encyclopedic. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - and a squig's a squig, deal with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.63.214 (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable minor element to a game. Zero independent sources. --T-rex 15:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is never a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But "zero independent sources" is. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The word does get a couple Google news hits. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A pastiche of original research, trivia, and plot summary. Not covered by sources independent from the game manufacturer. Not significant to the backstory or the gameplay itself. Portions that are related to gameplay elements are conveyed in a fashion akin to a guide. Doesn't meet the general notability guideline and no applicable daughter guideline has found a consensus within the community. Protonk (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect' according to the suggesting to AMIB, depending on the amount of material, which is best judged individually, article by article. I agree separate articles is probably a bit too much--but so id outright deletion DGG (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a mass AFD. Those links are related AFDs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it seems rather odd to say "per aMiB" and then argue an opposing conclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject is not notable outside the W40K universe. A more appropriate location would be a specialist wiki. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 14:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi, why did you delete this, Tim was going on about it, and now I'm still none the wiser about what a Squig is. Nice one guys(!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.38.65 (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]