Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)


 * 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 keep. No prejudice towards further discussion on redirecting or merging, but the conclusion is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Imperial Guard (Warhammer 40,000)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A faction in a board game and associated fiction. Article consists only of in-universe plot summary (WP:NOTPLOT), and is sourced only to non-independent primary sources (gamebooks, video games, etc.), failing WP:N.  Sandstein  17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 per nom. Reliable sources are virtually nonexistent, as once you remove the obvious product pages from searches, all that's left are fan sites, forum posts, and other unreliable sources.  I was initially going to suggest redirecting to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), but upon looking at that page, I realized that it had all the same problems as this one and then some, so that doesn't seem especially prudent.  Redirecting to the main Warhammer 40K article makes the most sense at this point.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. All I got from scholarly sources is one sentence in a book . Perhaps someone can find some sources in geeky hobbist media that would be independent of GW. This is after all a major faction in a major franchise, I'd think it would have had some impact on culture, through I guess it has ben vastly overshadowed by Space Marines, etc. I mean, recently we (the few people who voted) decided that each Star Trek Enterprise ship variant is notable, for example. But unless someone can find such sources, well, it's fancruft that fails Notability (fiction), indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 21:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - agree with nominator. Unless it's covered in good sources from an out-of-universe perspective (and I don't have time to wade through the many pages of fansites etc to establish for sure that it isn't), then it doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. The Land (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Warhammer 40,000 per nom and above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Necrothesp and Jcelements below, or merge to Warhammer 40,000. BOZ (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why keep or merge content that has no reliable third-party sources and is only material that per WP:NOTPLOT isn't suited to Wikipedia, but rather to fan wikis?  Sandstein   16:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Significant organisation in both a very longstanding and notable tabletop miniature game (one of the most notable tabletop miniature games ever, in fact) and a longstanding and notable roleplaying game, set in a world about which vast amounts have been written over the years. I think this one crosses the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What are the third-party, reliable sources that make it cross the notability bar?  Sandstein   14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Even if Warhammer 40K is notable, that does not automatically mean that every element within the Warhammer 40K universe is also notable, unless they have multiple reliable sources supporting that they are.  So far, it does not seem like this group has any.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep with a less bad 'find sources' template, you get The Mary Sue, PCGamesN (and there are dozens of other game reviews on this or other sites mentioning the Imperial Guard), Slate, Forbes, and The Escapist, for instance.  That's just a smattering, and I'm not even very familiar with WH40K, but when a faction shows up in a corporate earnings discussion, even in passing, I would call that pretty high indication of real-world impact. Sad to see this has run for a whole week without any of this meager level of BEFORE work. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for digging those up - but those sources don't really help very much, in my view. Yes, the Imperial Guard gets a mention in discussions of WH40k. Do those mentions add up to enough out-of-universe material to justify an independent article ? Probably not. Now, if there were a number of articles that specifically discussed the Imperial Guard as a subject rather than "here's a feminist critique of Warhammer and by the way Imperial Guard" or "Here's the latest amazing 40k game! Imperial Guard are in it" I would be saying "keep". The Land (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Yes, these are all passing mentions of this being one of the factions - only the Mary Sue has two paragraphs, but this is by far not enough for notability.  Sandstein   08:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 01:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Do the sources provided by establish the requisite notability?
 * Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jclemens. Stuff needs to be cut down and sourced, but this shouldn't be deleted. If consensus is not to keep, the redirect should be to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000), its parent faction, rather then the main franchise page. Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000). The question is whether this element of fiction is independently notable from the series. All of the sources, including the ones recently added above, show that the series is the covered element, of which the IG is a part. The fictional world of Warhammer 40,000 is a walled garden: lots of unsourced articles filled with in-universe plot summary. Surely its fictional world is, comparably, more important to the series than it might be to another, but all that means is that its major fictional concepts should be covered in a list (or ideally, prose) in a set place. I suggest Fictional universe of Warhammer 40,000. If there are enough sources to split out summary style, do it from that section, but start somewhere and expand outwards—Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of in-universe summary and there are other venues for that. With the sources above, what needs to be said in an encyclopedia article for a general audience? Not more than a paragraph. Why wouldn't that fit within Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) or a different section on the game's plot? There aren't enough sources to justify this concept as independently notable from the fictional universe. czar  02:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * weak keep the sources found by Jclemens are probably just enough to get over WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.