Deletion of Snotling

Comment: Here we go again.  The books, magazines and references on Warhammer subjects are almost exclusively produced under the direct control of the game manufacturer.  Because they wield explicit and strong control over their intellectual property, an unlicensed fictional or out of universe account of this unit is highly unlikely.  The significant coverage available on this subject comes from Games Workshop publications and publishing houses (White Dwarf (magazine)|White Dwarf, Fanatic magazine, the codexes and the works of fiction are all published and produced by games workshop).  The sources listed above in the AfD (as no independent sources in the article are cited) provide a textbook definition of what is meant by a Wikipedia:N#cite_note-0|trivial mention.  Each source either mentions the text string "snotling" in an entirely different context or only mentions it in passing on the way to discuss another subject.  It is plainly not our business to populate this encyclopedia with items simply because some company has published material about them.  This feeling is expressed in the guideline  and in the overall outcome for the warhammer AfD's (overwhelmingly, the articles are deleted or redirected).  We should respect that consensus and that guideline and delete this article as it fails |the general notability guideline and meets no daughter guideline.  Arguments to keep the article based on logs of edits, searches, or inherited notability don't cut the mustard.  Delete it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG)

Comment: In my opinion this term doesn't meet the |GNG (at least as far as I can find).  However, I do think this is an example of a place where the GNG is wrong.  The non-independent sources allow for sourcing to meet WP:V, and in my search for this term I read through a ''lot'' of sources using the term.  Most in the context of the game (mainly painting the minis) but some outside.  Further, I found some pretty good reviews/overviews of Snotlings, but mainly in blog/forum type locations (self-published and thus not a RS.)  The problem is that the term is clearly notable and worth having here.  It is heavily used (25,000-75,000 ghits depending on how you do the search), shows up in RS reviews (as a passing reference) and simply belongs here.  So an IAR !vote to keep
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This subject is appearing to be |notable, it has |refs, and it's |styled somewhat well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:VERIFY||WP:MOS)

Comment: No coverage in sources independent from the subject, per . The "keep" opinions above ignore this issue. As pointed out above, the Google Books search results are not about the fictional creatures at issue here
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)