Deletion of RuneScape gods (fifth)

Comment: The series are notable, and it is not a game guide.  Fancruft is not part of the deletion criteria.  Wikipedia:Fancruft is an '''essay''', not an official policy, and it's |something to be avoided in deletion debates
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: It looks like the article is going to be remodeled soon anyways, so your citation concerns will be addressed.  However, ''we generally do not make sure that every new section of an article is notable in-and-of-itself'' in case it may later need splitting, just in relation to the topic being discussed in the original article; after a section is split off, sub-article notability depends on the parent article's notability and the size of the split.  The core concept of  is that sizable sub-articles remain part of the parent article, just on a separate page for (a) size concerns; (b) focused editing; and, (c) reduction of page history clutter in the parent article.  Normal notability concerns do not apply here because this isn't a normal case. (For the record, I have never played RuneScape, nor do I plan to, nor have I edited any RuneScape-related articles.) &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS)

Comment: If an article is a "subarticle" according to |summary style, does the subarticle need to meet notability in its own right? Even if it is assumed that summary style is an exception to notability, I think every article must still meet the |verifiability aspect of notability. It must have ''some'' references from third-party |reliable sources. Above it was stated that Michael Schumacher wouldn't be known without Formula 1. That's true, but Schumacher is not a notable topic ''simply because'' Formula 1 is a notable sport. (If that were true, then WP should have an article on every person remotely connected with Formula 1.) It ought to be common sense that random pit crew are not notable simply because Formula 1 is notable, unless they are discussed by reliable third-party sources. Likewise, RuneScape gods are not notable ''simply because'' RuneScape is notable. There ''should'' be some discussion of these entities in non-blog, non-forum, non-RuneScape sources. Are they mentioned in independent game reviews? I tried looking for a third party reference even for Guthix and was not successful, and I don't see where any of the "keep" !votes have provided third-party references either. If this topic is ''only'' referenced by RuneScape sources, how would an outside reader distinguish it from trivia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: I would consider the deities in a major MMORPG to be a worthy subject. We do not have inidividual articles on each deity, but a list of reasonable length to cover the subject is what is encouraged by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: While  etcetera may not be bad enough for deletion,  certainly is. The question here is, '''has the Gods of the RuneScape universe been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party, published works?''' I think not. Make it go away please
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT||WP:N)

Comment: Above I argued that  is not a license to split out any parts of a large article, but only those parts which can stand alone satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, OR. #Merging refers to "information which ... is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject". This seems fairly appropriate here. Within an article on RuneScape, if the RuneScape gods are important to a full explanation of ''RuneScape'' as a topic (whose notabilty is already independently established), then it is fine to describe the RuneScape gods with reference to RuneScape-published sources. However, I don't think this is enough for a stand-alone article on ''RuneScape gods''. I think we should be hesitant to endorse stand-alone articles that cannot be referenced to any third-party sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SS||WP:N)

Comment: Was there even a fourth nomination?  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RuneScape_gods_(third_nomination)|The third was just two months ago, this is too early for another.  The article needs a rewrite to remove some cruft + , but other than that it's fine.  Also, try to be a bit more careful on your next AfD, there's red links everywhere, I think we skipped the 4th nom, and I had to look in your contribs to find this page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: No, THAT does not make sense, seriously. Let's dissect the opening paragraph of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per Gimmetrow above. Notability, it has long been said in the context of biographical pieces, is not contagious. Therefore, the argument that Runescape is notable, therefore any given article which can be connect to Runescape is notable, is a weak one. Indeed, Runescape-related articles have been deleted before now. As noted, the article has not been fixed, remaining riddled with  and liberally sprinkled with {{tl|fact}} tags, in spite of multiple AfDs. AfD may not be cleanup, but articles which remain persistently unreferenced are clearly problematic. Notable subjects are easily referenced because other commentators () have done all the hard work of collecting the data. Primary sources - the game and its supporting materials - should only serve for adding vivid (and misleading?) detail. Since any compliant article would necessarily be rewritten from scratch, deletion serves to purge Wikipedia of non-compliant (with , OR, , , ) material. There's no downside to deletion: either we lose an unacceptable article, and it is replaced by a rewritten one which is acceptable, or it isn't replaced. Either way we come out ahead
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:FICT||WP:V||WP:RS)