" 
 ***** Who said I was being sarcastic?  Anybody who can usefully contribute to 40K articles, and keep them within the boundaries of WP:FICT (provide real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on the development and historical significance, not just a detailed summary of plot, and provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) and WP:SOURCES (not just using Games Workshop material (which includes codexes, the books printed under the Forge World banner like Imperial Armour or the fiction published by Black Library) is valued on Wikipedia.Computer game articles don't (or at least shouldn't) just consist of plot lines and information provided by the developers - they include sources such as reviews in reliable magazines, articles written about the impact the game had, and other information related to the way the games relate to the real world.  Film articles might list a summary of the plot, but will also include properly sourced information about how they were made, and why certain decisions were made... why should articles about 40K not be subject to those same rules?The ""meat"" of a 40K article should be ''""This is such-and-such army/faction/character.  In the game they are represented by these models, which were designed by such-and-such person.  This army/faction/character has such-and-such special abilities in the game.  Such-and-such magazine praised the army/faction/character for this-and-that reason, but did not like this-and-that thing about it.  For the back story associated with the game, the writers drew inspiration from such-and-such book/myth/film/religious organisation."" and so on.  That way they adhere to the rules Wikipedia has in place for articles.     "