Talk:Aphorisms to Anger Warlocks

Purpose
Is there any evidence to suggest that this book is significant to the Destiny universe and not just made up for the sole purpose of being in that item's description? -- Vektor0 (talk) 00:19, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's not significant, but it's still part of the universe, which is enough reason for it to have an article, similar to all the other item descriptions that contain items within themselves needing articles... if that makes sense.  OutrightUndead  00:29, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * Why would the book need to be significant for it to have an article here? it has been mentioned countless times, and is something that exists within the universe. The point of a wiki is to create a database not simply based on the game, but forthe universe around the game... and what the heck does this mean "and not just made up for the sole purpose of being in that item's description?" what does that mean, literally everything in destiny is made up... ralok (talk) 01:21, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * He meant that the article was made for the sole purpose of being mentioned in an item description. And it was, but like you said, Ralok, the book has been mentioned elsewhere, too, and it does need an article in this Wiki even if it is insignificant.  OutrightUndead  01:50, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * If it is mentioned multiple times (like the article has now been edited to mention), then that is what I was looking for. What I meant was that we shouldn't create individual articles for, say, random rocks on Venus. The subject needs to not just be in the Destiny universe, but be a significant part of it. This is also stated in the New Article Policy:


 * "New articles must meet the following criteria: 1. The subject of a new article must be directly and substantially to the Destiny games, canon, universe, or development. 2. The subject of a new article must be separate enough from related topics and have enough depth to require its own article."


 * "The following pages are considered inappropriate for new articles: 1. No meaningful content or history (e.g. random characters)." -- Vektor0 (talk) 02:21, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry... but you are horribly incorrect here, and you are taking that way to literally. If something exists in the universe and is a named object then there should be a page on it. This is a book, that exists to the people of the universe. There isnt a name forevery damn rock on venus, and they have no relevence to the characters. This on the other hand is relevent enough to warrant repeat mentions. ralok (talk) 02:24, September 20, 2014 (UTC)


 * "2. The subject of a new article must be seperate enough from related topics and have enough depth to require its own article." The handbook, Aphorisms to Anger Warlocks may not have enough information to grant itself an article, but I suggest to create a page on books/handbooks that are referenced throughout the game. Aphorisms to Anger Warlocks could be put on a page with books like Handbook to (Un)Controversial Advice (referenced through the Grinder's Cloak). Sirdude103 (talk) 00:15, October 2, 2014 (UTC)