- 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. Damned if I know if any of the content is relevant for merging... — Scientizzle 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Kheith'as (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Procedural nom, article that's of questionable notability that's remained in terrible shape since being tagged with a bunch of stuff in April. I have no opinion on the matter. Wizardman 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references to meet WP:N, and no out-of-universe information to otherwise show notability. If there's anything in there, it should be merged to whichever Warhammer 40K article has in-universe information. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Simply not notable. Jobjörn (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Merge relevant content to Tomb Kings. —BradV 15:35, 25 March 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.