Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Difference between revisions of "Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum:Deletion candidates"

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Joshwuzheerz (Talk) to last version by Genestealer)
m (removed 1)
Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
--I believe that those are the best current descriptions we have of them right now, and what they are used for. They don't necessarily need to be full of information just hold us over until we get more. -- [[User:General Nikolas|Nikolas]] 11:50 Sunday, April 19 2009. (EST)
 
--I believe that those are the best current descriptions we have of them right now, and what they are used for. They don't necessarily need to be full of information just hold us over until we get more. -- [[User:General Nikolas|Nikolas]] 11:50 Sunday, April 19 2009. (EST)
 
 
[[Signature Evolutionary Adaptations]]‎ - delete this please, these are rules, and I'm sure the evolutionary aspect is already covered in the Kroot article. Thanks. --[[User:Acidface|Acidface]] 05:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 
  
 
*[[Imperial Battle Honours]] - this is redundant with [[Space Marine Honour Badges]]
 
*[[Imperial Battle Honours]] - this is redundant with [[Space Marine Honour Badges]]

Revision as of 10:24, 5 July 2009

This is the place to list articles and discuss that should be deleted or restored. Discussions are sorted by date. A list of what's suggested for deletion can be found here Category:Lexicanum deletion candidates.

If you want to suggest that an article should be deleted, plase read the Deletion Rules. A list of deleted articles can be found under Deletion Log.

If you want to suggest that a deleted article should be restored please file it in under "Articles that should be restored" on this page.

Every suggestion has to be signed with ~~~~.

See Lexicanum:Deletion Candidates/Unresolved for other discussions on deletions

Deletion Candidates

We'll Be Back - I believe I made this in the first place, but come to think of it, is it not just describing a rule, which isn't part of the remit for this wiki?--Jonru 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


*Image:Auroramarine1.JPG

Delete 'Image:Auroramarine1.JPG', please. I had a perfectly good image already up.

This has a few problems, there is no chapter symbol on the shoulder .. the image is in need of some cropping; look at all the unnecessary space around the marine. Why was the previous image replaced with this? --Acidface 21:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I nominate Orkamungus for deletion, as user who created page said he would "work" on it within the timeframe of 2 weeks. this transmission was in November. It's a bit of an eye sore really for an article to be unfinished for months.--Vindicta 21:50, 8 January 2009 (CET)

I disagree, the article is now up to an acceptable standard. --RCgothic 12:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

--I Believe that the articles: Lord Commissar, Imperial Guard Regimental Advisor and Primaris Psyker should be restored/kept. I did true copy and paste them, exactly. I will not deny, but I was busy and wanted to get them set up. I would like to see them kept and I will re-write them. I apologize, I just believe that they should be kept. -- Nikolas 3:03 Saturday, April 18 2009. (EST)

I believe they should be, if anything, integrated with existing articles. There's already a single Commissar article which includes Commissar-Generals, Cadets, etc. Besides the advertising blurbs on the GW site describing how fabulous the new units are, there's not yet any info on the Lord Commissars, Advisors, etc. --Acidface 02:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

--I believe that those are the best current descriptions we have of them right now, and what they are used for. They don't necessarily need to be full of information just hold us over until we get more. -- Nikolas 11:50 Sunday, April 19 2009. (EST)

Please delete Dark Brotherhood - There was a piece of artwork in RT captioned chapter of the dark brotherhood, but it's questionable whether this was meant to refer to an actual chapter, and I don't think we need an article with a long list of unknowns. --Acidface 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Then we should delete the template, include the image and a short description of the known, well, "facts". I would keep this article, as I don't see any place to place (...) it elsewhere. It's information for the readers anyway.--Genestealer, Magus 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles That Should Be Restored