Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods (fifth)
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
— User:Angusmclellan, 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:FICT||WP:V||WP:RS (Wikipedia:No original research)