Deletion of Characters and groups in Bionicle

Comment: Does not cite independent secondary sources to establish notability per .  this is an important point to make for Bionicle articles because some of the "reference" material is published by Scholastic Inc.  While Scholastic is technically an independent publisher, they have a bad habit of making works for hire for anyone who pays (game makers, etc), so we need to make a gut check on whether or not independent editorial control exists.  Other sources likely to be used for an article like this are largely primary--manuals and guides are almost all published by LEGO or subsidiaries.  I would be inclined to support a merger but at present ''no verified claims exist in the article'' and the probable target (Bionicle) doesn't need more in universe information.  As always, this article has multiple editorial concerns:  and  spring directly to mind.  Delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WAF||WP:NOR)

Comment: no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage by |reliable sources to meet . Whole article is completely unreferenced (), and consists completely of plot details (#PLOT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE||WP:NOR||WP:NOT)

Comment: This is a #PLOT|plot summary, pure and simple.  It abandons |an out of universe tone as soon as possible.  |Summary style is not a free pass, and articles must show independent notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:INUNIVERSE||WP:SS)

Comment: as sheer cruft that cannot aspire to notability per  and per our |first pillar: |Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:5P||WP:NOT)