Deletion of Officio Assassinorum (2nd nomination)

Comment: Lacks citations to multiple third-party sources offering significant coverage, i.e. fails to meet , . Content is entirely in-universe plot summary, failing to offer an encyclopedic treatment (#PLOT, 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:FICT||WP:NOT||WP:WAF)

Comment: no assertion of notability through non-trivial coverage from |reliable sources independent of the topic. Fails #PLOT as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOT)

Comment: the first AfD was voided by the closing admin on request because the nominator was banned ''blocked'' as a sock (basically a recreated account in order to avoid an indef block).  the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Officio_Assassinorum&action=history has not changed in between.  Criticism raised in the first AfD is just as valid today.  This article still uses only source material produced by Games Workshop (White Dwarf (magazine), the codexes and the fiction are all published by games workshop).  The article covers a fictional agency of a faction in a miniatures game--this faction is mentioned in the codexes but otherwise is not an element of the game (one may play as the imperium without knowing who they are).  None of the sources support notability outside this fictional universe and no secondary sources exist to assert notability per .  As an editorial manner, the article needs to be rewritten to satisfy 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:WAF)

Comment: No evidence that the |independent third-party sources needed for creation of a |neutral and |verifiable article exist
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:V)