Deletion of Emperor of Mankind

Comment: No demonstration of notability through sources independent of Games Workshop (or its subsidiaries).  Don't forget about the |OR there too (i.e. "... the character seems heavily influenced by ..." if true, find a source that says this, don't conclude it for yourself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Passes  and seems to pass .  Article has been around for a long time and has been worked on by many people.  I can see that it could be written better, but AfD for deletion?... nah
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: Redirect target would be to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) or some future, unrelated article on emperors.  The sources provided for the article are not independent of the game maker.  the subject of the article is a fictional character heading a fictional faction in Warhammer 40K (just for some clarification).  If the title "Emperor of Mankind" has been claimed by humans (middle kingdom, japan, ghengis khan, etc), that is irrelevant.  We would NOT merge this article into an article such as Emperor of Japan on the basis that the japanese emperors used to claim divinity and sovereignty over all mankind.  We would not fill this article with duplicated content from various articles on emperors who have claimed to be rulers of all mankind.  this deletion debate covers only the subject and article at hand.  the creation of an article about emperors is independent of this discussion.  That would be like protesting the deletion of Ork (Warhammer 40,000) on the basis of other fictional Orc's.  Either way, this article does not meet the |guidelines for notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: appears to have some coverage in  sources, though admittedly more work needs to be done
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&q=%22Emperor+of+Mankind%22+&btnG=Search A google scholar search for this exact term does not appear to support the usage you have adduced, except in those few (4) neologist instances. Could you please provide more specific references (& good on you to provide page numbers) from reputable scholarly sources so we can judge whether this usage is generally accepted in the context of the reification of Asian kingship? For example, (source 2) to translate Genghis Khan as "Emperor of Mankind" is simply erroneous, indeed baffling. A google search of "Ghenghis Khan" with "Emperor of Mankind" (removing, lol, Warhammer of course) produces http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=NVs&q=Genghis+Khan+%22Emperor+of+Mankind%22+-Warhammer&btnG=Search all of six Ghits. Source 4 (supporting the claim that the title is used in the context of Christianity) is an extraordinary extrapolation to all of Christian doctrine of a single passage (that you have linked to, viz. ''I recognise my Lord, the king of kings and the emperor of mankind'') uttered in translation in the context of a solitary martyrological instance. Thus, as it stands and based on the referenced material provided, the opening phrase '''Emperor of Mankind is a title used by a number of Asian emperors and deities''' is simply false and the other uses are, at best, idiosyncratic. Wikipedia is here to reflect, |not create. Thus, any JSTOR or other scholarly material that you can dig up to flesh out these (in my view) inadequately referenced assertions would be highly useful. I salute your desire to save articles, but the gussying up of an infrequent neologism and providing it with the semblance of academic credibility, when in fact it has none, is not the way to go about it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: no assertion of notability via non-trivial coverage in |reliable sources independent of the topic, thus failing 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NOTE)

Comment: Nothing in non-trivial reliable secondary sources, fails .  No real-world notability.  The rewritten version is just a |pretty blatant piece of coatracking
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTE||WP:COATRACK)