Deletion of C'tan (2nd nomination)

Comment: As with the other Warhammer AfD's,  provides a clear guide as to which pages are to be maintained.  If the subject is covered in significant detail in independent sources, it is presumed to be notable (note for the curious, the codexes, works of fiction and White Dwarf magazine are all published by games workshop).  This AfD is not the forum for debate on .  Extraneous and novel methods of determining "notability" that bear no resemblance to the consensus view don't seem very persuasive to me.  The fact that the article fails to abide by  is tangential but indicative of the larger problem of meshing this subject with a real world encyclopedia without some secondary sourcing to anchor it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:WAF)

Comment: per  as hopelessly unnotable, in-universe cruft
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: The nom is quite correct in that in the previous AfD, most of the keep arguments were weak at best. A good example is ''"Keep, article provides important information, why delete it?"'' Why, because the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is non-trivial coverage in |reliable '''independent''' sources. I have never before heard the idea that a second AfD lacks validity if we can't get everyone from the first one back. It has  long been accepted that |concensus can change
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CCC)