Deletion of List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series

Comment: All of this can be sourced through in-game dialogue and other in-game elements and strategy guides (quite possibly Brady's, in particular); the gangs can also be considered, albeit in a somewhat warped sense, major characters through : most of these gangs play major roles through ''all'' of the games starting from GTA III. You just can't add them into their respective articles, or any other article, of that matter, due to the large amount of information, which, I will say again, ''can'' be sufficiently sourced. I also feel a AfD nomination is ''way'' too extreme; I think a simple OR or "unreferenced" tag could have sufficed, in this matter. As for the title, I think we could simply discuss a simple solution for this matter, even though I do feel the title is sufficient: gangs have played a ''major'' part in all of the GTA games, from GTA 1 to VCS, so I don't see why a "list of gangs" page is so strange
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: There's some  and  going on here. The Grand Theft Auto games have been the subject of ''"multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other"'', the ''gangs in Grand Theft Auto series'' have not. |Wikipedia is not a game guide and #IINFO|Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. More than a little |OR going on here too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:OR)

Comment: I'm not sure why people are citing , as the current version of the article completely goes against everything at  and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Is there any way at all this could ever be more than game guide/GameFAQs material
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT||WP:FICT)

Comment: I was contacted on my talk page, in what seemed to me to be a solicitation or 'canvassing' for !votes.  This is not allowed under.  Please do not do this.  As a result of this, I will not !vote on this AFD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: A hopeless quagmire of |in-universe, speculative, and original research garbage for which no page would benefit from a merge. This has been an endless source of revert warring over whose original research interpretation is better
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:WAF)

Comment: per IslaySolomon and A Man In Black.  is '''not''' a valid keep argument
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT)

Comment: Does not fail  as game content is inherently verifiable. Entirely appropriate as a list. It is a sub-article of the GTA series and as such, is entirely appropriate and not "unencyclopedic". Article itself is obviously long enough that it was split off from the main article. As for lacking secondary sources, that is only useful in a deletion discussion in establishing notability. Since that is obviously not the case here (as it is a sub-article of a very notable game series), lacking secondary sources only merits "sources needed" tags and not deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)