Tyranid: I couldn't find anything serious here outside one thesis here that discusses this fictional entity.  There are of course zillion fan-news, but they are just rehashes of plot summaries [13] and how-to-play, with a side of "look at this cool mini" [14] , with no analysis of this faction that I can see.  I suggested redirecting this to Warhammer_40,000#Tyranids unless someone can find sources I am missing.  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements , Science fiction and fantasy ,  and Games .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 05:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Question : does independent sources in the meaning of WP:GNG exclude Games Workshop publications: clearly, those aren't run by the Tyranids themselves (as far as we know), but I'm not sure I'm entirely happy to call them 'independent' in the conventional sense.  I'm not sure I've got the details or chronology right here, but what's the state of coverage as regards e.g. these creatures as inspiration for other pop cultural phenomena, such as the Alien films or in Starcraft ?  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 12:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ UndercoverClassicist Generally, yes, that's how we understood that.  Publications by the IP holders are not considered independent (a Marvel-published 'encyclopedia' of Marvel universe would not count for estabilishing notability of Marvel characters, just like their comics won't count, etc.).  So for GW stuff, their Codexes, novels, White Dwarf, etc. won't help much as they are all WP:PRIMARY .  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Warhammer_40,000#Tyranids , as this faction does not seem notable enough on its own to justify an article.  Di (they-them) ( talk ) 04:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect s are cheap and this is an extremely obvious search term.  Dronebogus ( talk ) 10:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge Have Zones of Control , p. 608, 611 and Slime Dynamics been considered as secondary sources?  Humanismus, Transhumanismus und Posthumanismus im fiktiven Universum von Warhammer 40,000 , p. 33, 40-42, 49 also has a sizeable section on the Tyranids, although it is plot-heavy.  If that together should not be considered enough for a stand-alone article, at the very least the sentence based on Zones of Control gives creative background which would improve the Warhammer 40,000#Tyranids section, currently lacking secondary sources, in a merge.  Daranios ( talk ) 15:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Additional source with a small bit of commentary is this Polygon article .  Additionally I wonder if "the Tyranid minis are cool", and why, should not be relevant commentary, as my understanding of Warhammer is that miniatures, combat rules, and universe are all important components of the game.  Daranios ( talk ) 17:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] As a bit of an outsider to this topic, I'd encourage that; the current page on the game could do with more focus on how the models and concepts themselves were conceived, developed and brought into production, which would help with its current in-universe perspective problem.  UndercoverClassicist ( talk ) 18:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am having trouble seeing SIGCOV in Zones... but the Slime Dynamics treatment is quite good - certainly a good source to keep note of!  Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | reply here 02:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] More sources: This article from The Gamer has a sizeable section on the Tyranids in the Magic: The Gathering crossover.  Wargamer.com has articles on the Tyranids and their sub-faction of the Genestealers .  All three do plot-summary, but also review the faction with regard to gameplay.  So overall I see no reason why there should not be enough material for a non-stubby article.  Daranios ( talk ) 07:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge per Daranios with sources found.  BOZ ( talk ) 10:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: redirect