Deletion of Dark Angels (Warhammer 40,000)

Comment: WP:FICTION is a proposed policy guideline but it sets a generally more lenient stance toward notability than the current applicable guideline: .  It isn't universal, but if it doesn't meet the proposed WP:FICT, it won't meet the GNG.  For the uninitiated, the articles above describe individual unit level groups of the Space Marines (which is itself a subset of the imperium of man, a race in 40K).  For play purposes, these were distinguished by different coloring scheme (and for occasionally ''serious'' players, certain RP considerations determined whether or not units would be deployed in a certain fashion or what makeup would comprise the unit).  An equivalent article for the real world would be something like the 11th Field Artillery Regiment.  Notable if they have some history (like the 1st Infantry Regiment (United States)), but otherwise not inherently notable due to their affiliation with the United States Army.  As with each of these 40K nominations, it helps to note that all of the referenced sources are from Games Workshop or through contract with them--sufficient for WP:V, but not WP:N.  This information (insofar as it is not a copyvio) belongs on a dedicated warhammer wiki without the guidelines for notability that wikipedia has.  Then they can add  information, information that we might otherwise remove in accordance with  and so forth
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:GAMEGUIDE||WP:WAF)

Comment: These articles are entirely "in world". WP:PLOT (part of the official policy ) reads "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner; discussing the reception, impact and significance of notable works. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." these articles run far over a "concise plot summary" and contain none of the treatment of reception, impact and significance of these topics.  Without real-world context and analysis (properly sourced) there is nothing here to inform us about the historical significance, the notability, of the works.  It is simply a collection of arbitrary facts about the backstory of a group of fictional characters of unknown meaning, importance or notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 40k-|cruft (Yes, cruft.  Crufty cruft cruft.)  Now let me prove this is cruft. They fail the |general notability guideline, the proposed |toys and games notability guidelines, the proposed |fiction notability guidelines and is |unverifiable outside primary sources.  The articles utterly ignore the |writing about fiction guidelines. The leads are sort of out-of-universe, then the articles dive into in-universe plot summaries that |stitched together from various sources into a cohesive storyline
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:FANCRUFT||WP:GNG||WP:TOYS||WP:FICT||WP:V||WP:WAF||WP:SYN)

Comment: all fail #PLOT, no assertion of notability to satisfy E
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOTE)

Comment: and merge any |verifiable and |notable content into Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000).  No doubt the game is notable, and even the major races of the game are notable.  But factions of the major races of the game?  Uh, no, sorry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOTE)

Comment: per . Primary sources can be used to verify information but not to establish notability; the material within is also unsalvageably in-universe. Only the Blood Angels have been covered by secondary sources in the past, due to their iconic presence in Space Hulk (video game) and its sequel, but even then the chapter itself is a seconary footnote which can be adequately covered in the game articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICTION)