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. May be restored upon request for transwiki purposes. Sandstein 16:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

The article is chock full of original research and in-universe commentary. Clean-up is virtually impossible because if I remove all of the in-universe that is relevant to a "history" article then the article would be blank. The very very limited real world material is already covered in the actual imperial guard article and are irrelevent to an article pertaining to history. There is no real world reliable 3rd party sources that discuss those matters in any detail or with any scholarship. Allemandtando (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve It should be kept and cleaned with editors who have experience with this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktr101 (talk • contribs)

and what do you plan to improve it with ? If we clean the article it will be blank. --Allemandtando (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or delete Clearly, the article is not suitable for wikipedia. It's subject, the history of the Imperial Guard, is inherently in-universe, because it means the FICTIONAL history of the Imperial Guard. The article with this title should, by wikipedia standards, describe the real world history, even of fictional concepts. In this case, that would not support an article. However, it is well written and, within the scope of its subject, well researched. So it would be nice to see it transwiki'd. And it has a tag saying that is planned to happen already. So why hasn't that happened (the tag, I see, was placed January 15th of this year)? If that is still a possibility, I'd like to see that happen (though I don't know much about how it works myself). If not, I'd support deletion. gnfnrf (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete. In-universe, not supported by independent references to demonstrate notability. All references are first party, i.e. printed by Games Workshop or subsidiaries. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources. Also, ricockulously long. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki:I see gold, purple, and yellow tag. Copy it at another place. This is too long; and random, does not focus on fix subject.--Freewayguy ^{Msg USC} 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, transwiki information if applicable. Rasadam (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki attempts have been scheduled by anonymous editors this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki if applicable but this is in-universe material not supported by reliable third party sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's material out there, you just have to know where to look. 68.43.196.134 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 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.