Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was no consensus. I am compelled by the argument that these articles should not be grouped together into a single AFD discussion, as they represent significantly varying levels of notability/usefulness/game-guide-ness, and varying levels of quality. It is likely that, if the same contributors were discussing individual articles in this list, many would be deleted while others would be kept. This is NOT a precedent-setting decision and the individual articles involved in this discussion can certainly be nominated in smaller groups or separately right away. The only thing people should take from this is to be careful how you group nominations - it's tempting to say that these are all related because of the game, but they differ too much to get any clear consensus out of the deal. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape armour[edit]

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Also nominating related articles in the RuneScape Category which fit into the exact same type and style:

Why? Well...

  • These are inherantly fancrufty. Have no relevance outside the game whatsoever, and there's endless amounts of them.
  • WP:OR Completely unresearched. There's no references in any of the articles: "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought".
  • WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" - Game Guides. These are /most definitely/ game guides. No doubt about it.
    • A quote from RuneScape dungeons: "This dungeon plays an important part in the Monkey Madness quest as Zooknook resides at the end of it. The trip through the dungeon passes zombie monkeys, skeletons, and many traps.". These articles are not self-serving, they don't belong here.
  • Look at the articles themselves. Some of them are indepth, but are far from encyclopaedic.
  • Many of the things are quite simply /not notable/. They don't attempt to establish notability, aside from "Well, it appears in RuneScape".
  • RuneScape Armour alone has previously been on AFD where the result was no consensus. I think this debate, if nothing else, may present a consensus.
  • If it wasn't implied by the above, I "vote" Delete.

-Halo 10:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Just thought it might be worth mentioning (in the interest of complete transparency) the following RFDs I've just found:
Apologies if I missed any. I would /seriously/ discourage anyone from voting "merge", since a merge clearly won't happen considering previous AFD votes. I would also like any admins to consider this AFD properly, and not simply count /votes/, which aren't particularly useful (past AFDs have been "saved" due to "votes" rather than discussion). Halo 14:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Blanking and Redirection of Smithing_(RuneScape), Crafting_(RuneScape), and Prayer_(RuneScape)[edit]

Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion specifically states that "You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community." The blanking and redirection of these articles thus appears to be improper, and creates doubt as to whether this AFD filing can serve as an appropriate basis for the deletion of the nominated articles. John254 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the improper blanking and redirection of these three articles. However, since these articles were blanked and redirected for over 24 hours, it is still highly questionable whether any of the nominated articles could be deleted as a result of this AFD filing. John254 05:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there was a consensus to keep Runecrafting, Cooking (RuneScape), Crafting (RuneScape), Magic (RuneScape), Prayer (RuneScape) as a result of an AFD closed July 9, 2006, and there was a consensus to keep Construction (RuneScape) as a result of an AFD closed July 7, 2006. Thus, I claim that Halo's nomination of nearly every article in Category:RuneScape for deletion, included the very articles listed above, so soon after there were decisions to keep these very articles, is an abuse of the AFD process that should not be rewarded. Undoubtedly, if articles were repeatedly re-nominated for deletion within a short period of time, a "consensus" for deletion might eventually be reached during one of the AFD's purely by chance; however, I claim that it is improper to subject articles to "double jeopardy" by re-nominating them for deletion less than two weeks after a consensus was reached to keep them. John254 23:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - [[User
  • Delete per nom. Also possible copyvio, though I can't verify this. This is stuff that belongs in a manual which traditionally won't get read anyways. Tychocat 11:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment If there is a copyright violation in every one of these articles then please highlight them. This should have been brought to the attention of the article editors on the article pages, where they can rectify or remove any offend pieces. Runescape does draw a significant amount of first time editors and the regular editors endeavour to maintain the articles and avoid such items. 00:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete All of these pages were split from the main RuneScape page because that page became too large. Why? Because people introduced too much non-encyclopedic information into them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There exists a place in which one can gather as much Runescape knowledge as they would like. This place isnt here! This fancrufty, video game guide, doesn't belong on the Wikipedia, but rather a suitable article briefly overviewing the game, and then linking to other repositories of Runescape information is much more suitable. --Porqin 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete rampant fancruft. We can safely leave the nuances of these topics to the Runescape website and forums. Just zis Guy you know? 13:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per well-written nom. Also, the previous AFDs "keep" reasons were bad if at all existent. Wickethewok 13:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge short summaries into original Runescape article, and delete all the listed articles. I have helped write MMORPG-related articles, and this just borders on ridiculous. For example, I play EVE Online, and I've managed to keep the entire set of articles on EVE Online in Wikipedia down to three. Runescape is no more notable, and doesn't need 30+ articles related to it. Dark Shikari 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should provide an overview of the game and its significance, and point readers to dedicated resources for detailed information. We are not trying to replace the entire internet here. — Haeleth Talk 16:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into original RuneScape article. These articles are non-notable in themselves, but contain a lot of information that shouldn't simply be thrown out. --Gray Porpoise 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You hit the nail on the head, "contain a lot of information", they contain so much information, they have become game-guides, and unencyclopedic. --Porqin 16:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can't put too much back in the main article, as length is one of the factors preventing GA status. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is why it is suggested that we delete the unnecessary information (articles above) from the Wikipedia. --Porqin 17:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not arguing with that, quite a bit, but not all of this stuff is unnecessary. RuneScape definitely needs subpages, just not as many as this. See my vote below. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stronghold of Security as a waste of time, since it is covered in the main article, and is the most minor of miniquests anyway. Move everything else to Portal:RuneScape subpages so they can be cleaned, improved, merged and replaced as better article subpages. These articles contain important information for the main article, and it would be damaging to delete them, and they would be recreated as a necessity within a short time anyway. The information was originally in the main article, but we were told to move them into subpages as it made the main too long. I agree that all these subpages are just ridiculous, which is why I'd like them merged into, say; RuneScape equipment, RuneScape monsters and combat, RuneScape economy and skills, or something similar, relying on links to the RuneScape knowledge base for further detail. Other information, such as locations and community can possibly go back in the main article. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not a game guide; none of these articles are encyclopedic hoopydinkConas tá tú? 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all Wikipedia is not a game guide--Nick Y. 17:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and portalise per CaptainVindaloo. ~ ctales *blah* 18:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete all. I have always thought that these articles are utter trash. You hit the nail on the head quite nicely by saying that these articles are unencyclopaedic game guides that belong on a fansite. Not to mention unconsistency - it doesn't make sense to have articles on some RuneScape skills and have the others be completely ignored. Audacious One 19:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, invalid nomination, in part because you have not justified grouping 20+ articles for deletion without considering their individual merits. WP:OR does not apply, as this is derivative information that should be considered common knowledge viz game manuals and fan sites. "Not a game guide" is not a strong enough argument to remove the pages as there are over 30 articles in the Everquest series. These pages need to be adopted by Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games which should help cull much of the cruft that they admittedly contain. Shoehorn 20:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My justifcation is all the 20+ articles are (in the most part) very similar. Going through each of the 29 articles, pointing out all the bad points and justifying what's wrong would be /incredibly/ time consuming (unless you want me to explain how long it took me to put all the articles onto AFD as it is) and would clog up AFD. That said, feel free to justify any pages where my initial points don't apply. On top of that, you argue that the pages are tantamount to manuals and fansites (which, y'know, could be referenced - both are online with RuneScape), which teach how to play the game, almost proving my point about Game Guides and instruction manual. I don't understand where the justification for strong oppose came from in the above argument. Also, existance of 30 kludgy EverQuest pages is in no way an indicator that this is good practise... although I would point out that the Everquest pages have 23 pages about different expansions, different releases of the game (EQ1, 2, West etc) and related games (such as a PS2 game), most of which were commercial-released to retail, which makes it easy to justify that they need their own page so it's nowhere near in the same league. In practise, there's about 15 pages actually about the game. On top of that, it could be argued that EverQuest was a lot more influential as a game as possibly the first hugely successful subscription-model MMORPG which caused dozens of other games to be created, but I agree, the amount of pages there is also OTT and should be trimmed. I might do that next. Halo 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laziness is not a virtue. Clogging up AFD is not an issue. This discussion should focus on what should and what should not be included in WP, it is clear to me that one Runescape article would not be sufficient, especially given the history of the articles. I oppose deletion, as I said above, primarily because you are unwilling to examine the articles based on their individual merits/significance. Shoehorn 00:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd really rather not be called lazy, thanks - WP:NPA. Also, putting all 28 pages on AFD would artifically discourage people from contributing (bringing in a clear "non consensus", or keep, bias), they all have similar reasons for being deleted, and really would clog up AFD with the same reasons again and again when the process has been specifically designed to allow multiple deletions specifically in cases such as this (From WP:AFD, they're designed for - An article about a video game/book and related articles for characters within it.). I have good reasons for grouping these nominations. Putting 28 nominations would also represent 20%+ of a days AFD traffic, which I feel would not be good karma and would, indeed, clog it up. -Halo 00:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have the following situation: Nominating 28 individual articles for deletion would likely exhaust the attention of most casual participants, resulting in an unevenly argued consensus about which pages to keep/merge/delete. Probably half of the articles would be deleted, the rest marked for merge or cleanup. If instead you group all 28 articles together, glossing over individual problems/merits, you are going to get an easy consensus to delete all of the articles, as is the case here. So grouping all the articles together is simply a rhetorical tactic to avoid a fair evaluation of the individual articles. I think this is fundamentally unfair to the individual articles in question, many of which have successfully undergone AfD votes on previous occasions, and submit that this is an invalid nomiation. Shoehorn 05:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this is very much scraping the barrel as to why the articles should stay here, and that you are trying to invoke a "default rule" and I'm really struggling to believe this isn't done in bad faith as to avoid an overwhelming delete vote. Fact is that sending 28 /very similar/ articles to AFD isn't going to result in anything but overwhelming beauracracy and not a full and frank discussion, and I would no doubt be told I shouldn't have grouped the nominations and that THAT discussion wouldn't be binding by someone who wants to keep the articles. If there are any articles which you honestly think what I stated didn't apply, give your opinions, otherwise I stand by my comments completely. Halo 15:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a vote, and we have moved far beyond the point where an "overwhelming delete vote" could be taken as consensus to delete these articles. The discussion is completely polarized, and I am satisfied that this proposal has failed. Shoehorn 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (de-indenting) FYI, AfD outcomes are not binding on later discussions; a later AfD can reverse or nullify the outcome of a previous AfD. Kimchi.sg 13:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not suggesting that this AfD should be bound by previous discussions. I am saying that given the varied history of each of the 28 articles, some of which have been marked for merge/cleanup, as well as other articles from this category which have successfully been deleted through a valid AfD process, each of these articles is distinct enough to merit an individual AfD. Some of the subpages are organic extensions of the main article; others are indiscriminate collections of cruft that should be trimmed. Which pages deserve which fate cannot be determined by a grouped AfD. People are jumping on the "delete all" bandwagon because they think they can resolve this situation in one fell swoop, but I doubt any of them have reviewed all 28 pages. Shoehorn 19:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, per the nom's well-argued points. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/merge to wikia:runescape and delete from WP. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki/merge all to wikia:runescape, which means delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination. As said above, Wikipedia is not a game guide. The information in these articles are fancruft, there are no references, they're not what belong in an encyclopedia. They're simply not what Wikipedia is. Pop Up Ads 00:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete runecruft. --Pboyd04 01:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, what's the point in improving an article if by next week it could be deleted? This AfD has really put me off improving the articles until this is over. Although the nominator has thrown them all together in one AfD, I do not agree that they should all be dealt with as one article. Most articles don't even have a reason--the nominator has only listed seven reasons for twenty-eight articles. On that note, I wonder if the nominator has even reviewed all of these articles. It appears to me that this list has simply been copied from Template:RuneScape; even an errant <br> tag exists after the construction article in a list otherwise empty of them, and this uses the exact same [[x|y]] wikilink format. Up front I'd like to call a malformed nomination. Aside from that, since my input is encouraged, here's my opinion not on the RuneScape series, but on each article as its own entity:

Merge into a possible RuneScape equipment article.
Keep or at least Merge into RuneScape mini-games.
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Keep
Ironically, this page was taken out of the main RuneScape article, but looks like we're going to have to merge it back in.
Merge into RuneScape skills
Merge into RuneScape skills
Merge into RuneScape skills. The reason we moved these articles out was because of size of that page.
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Merge into RuneScape locations
Possible merge into the RuneScape equipment article.
No current opinion; I haven't read the article recently.
Merge into a possible RuneScape equipment article.
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Keep, accepting other articles
Merge into RuneScape combat
Keep, accepting other articles
Keep, accepting other articles.
Merge into RuneScape skills
Merge into RuneScape monsters
Merge into RuneScape skills.
Keep, accepting lots of other articles
Merge into RuneScape skills
This article only has had one contributor with less than one-hundred edits. I'm fairly insulted that the nominator is convinced that this article "[fits] into the exact same type and style" as some of the series's more worked-on articles.
Merge into RuneScape mini-games
Merge into that good ol' RuneScape equipment article.
Merge into RuneScape locations

Just because I say keep doesn't mean I think the articles are FA-status, perfect, or even good. They may have a lot of cruft, but to get rid of it, we don't have to delete the whole series; we just have to clean out the cruft. Anyone can do this. After all, if your house is dirty, you clean it up, you don't burn it down. Hyenaste (tell) 02:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem lies deeper than just cleaning out the cruft. First off, the only reason the articles exist is because of the fancruft. Secondly, the articles don't belong on Wikipedia to begin with. So cleaning them up doesn't solve the problem. A non-Runecraft player in passing, doesn't need to know about every intricate detail of the game. Rather, they can read an overview of the game, with the basics laid out, and then they can follow the links to other information repositories. The house must be demolished, because it was illegally built to begin with. --Porqin 03:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; whatever happens, RuneScape needs subpages. This is an absolutely monumental subject, so even putting the briefest of overviews into a single page will have people complaining about the length, and dooming the GA effort to failure. Unfortunately, the current subpages have gotten out of control, being too numerous to keep track of, letting the (inexplicably numerous) vandals and crufters run riot. However, it would save time and make the task of cleanup easier to move these to Portal subpages, where worthwhile information can be extracted and placed into brand new, less numerous and therefore easier to control subpages. The old subpages can then be speedied when they are no longer required. CaptainVindaloo t c e 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Since this AfD is current, are editors barred from merging pages? Hyenaste (tell) 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response "You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article." "It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy." --Porqin 12:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all per nomination. Mackensen (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, condense to fewer - there is more that can be said, even complying with the strictest interpretation of WP:NOT than will fit in one page. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games {{Move to gaming wiki}} tag may be more helpful than highly charged block AfDs where many will consider that a few should not be included and others just need attention. Ace of Risk 13:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - RuneScape_skills is a poor inclusion in this AfD - with a small bit of reworking, it probably represents an appropriate coverage of the features of a large game - there is probably not enough de-cruftified content to justify individual skill articles. Maybe condense some other material to a page on the P2P enhancements, such as mini-games, sticking to WHAT they are. Needs more than one page, but probably less than it has now. Ace of Risk 14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep. The subject is too great to fit into one article. We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion. Since the last time they all went up for deletion, we created a portal (which also went up for deletion with a keep result) to oversee and organize the articles. Some of them, such as the monster articles, could be merged. But if you have to delete them, I challenge you to go and delete every single piece of fancruft on Wikipedia. That includes video game and movie characters, locations, and monsters. And they are researched. A lot of the information is taken from the Knowledge Base and fansites, as well as the game itself. We could do with more references, and we have a policy about external links. Anyway, I've posted notices on the main article and portal page. If you're planning to delete articles, at least let the maintainers know. Anyway, keep. Dtm142 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The subject is too great to fit into one article -- That is because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The information included here should be concise, relevant, and without all the intricacies or fancruft.
    2. We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion -- Working very hard on something doesn't make you exempt from following the spirit of Wikipedia. Fancruft isn't the only applicable policy it violates. As mentioned above, it is in violation of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a game guide, nor a random collection of information. As stated prior, there already exists a Runescape Wiki that can hold endless amounts of Runescape knowledge, here isn't the place.
    3. I challenge you to go and delete every single piece of fancruft on Wikipedia -- As a community, we are continuously improving Wikipedia article by article. --Porqin 17:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, Porqin and JzG. Take them to the Runescape wiki. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, plenty of excellent reasons given already. Recury 23:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. I voted to delete last time too, even though I play the game regularly. The information belongs in wikia:runescape or Portal:RuneScape. I agree with Porqin, people have introduced too much non-encyclopedic information into them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There exists a place in which one can gather as much Runescape knowledge as they would like. This place isnt here! One article briefly overviewing the game, and then linking to other repositories of Runescape information is much more suitable.--JanesDaddy 00:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki if possible, if not, I vote Delete all per Haeleth. Wikipedia is a site that provides a general overview of a specific topic, and points the user in the right direction for more information. -- Solberg 01:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not a game guide. I see no purpose of these articles.--Shardakar
  • Keep, just because people have put so much work into these article and deleting them would not be cool. Lapinmies 09:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't suppose "Wikipedia is NOT cool" is a part of WP:NOT is it?  ;-) Wickethewok 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pokemon test is the most worthless pseudo-test imo - it is not objective at all, which means its really not a test. Additionally, I don't even know if this stuff passes anyway... 0_o Wickethewok 14:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, the deletionists have supported their views with policies (read above). Contrarily, the keepers have been among the fancruft, who make statements such as: "because people have put so much work into these article and deleting them would not be cool.", "We also worked very hard on them, and fancruft alone isn't a good enough reason for deletion.". --Porqin 14:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page states that the Pokémon test isn't policy, merely a point of view of a few people. IMO, two wrongs don't make a right. I am also slightly offended about my supposed "prejudace" against this game. Halo 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, firstly a lot of these articles have been created as they are two long for certain pages, thus shouldn't be merged. Secondly, this AFD is a is too muddled, some of the articles are of entirely different nature. Englishrose 19:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete (All). Wikipedia isn't an in-game guide for this game. Makoto 19:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All. Wilipedia is not a game guide, nor an indiscriminate collection of information. If people want to transwiki this to Runescape Wiki, then by all means go ahead, but this excessive fancruft has no place in an encyclopedia. --Wine Guy Talk 19:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep We had a single article before, just the RuneScape article. It was one of the longest articles on WP and needed serious shortening. Because there is so much information on RuneScape, the only way to shorten it was to have sub-pages. These sub-pages are all well written, well maintained and frequently checked through to make sure they conform with WP policy. We have been down this road before, a number of times. There is simply too much information to merge, and at least 90% of it is needed, so you cannot simply remove it. It is extremely useful to thousands of people and is factual. The portal serves as a great portal and a go-between on all the different pages. This series is far less game-crufty than some game series I can think of - • The Giant Puffin • 22:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looking at the Dagannoth and the Magic pages, I can't see where the actual encyclopedic fact applies. In essence, the Dagannoth guide is basically a dry walkthrough of the locations of the Dagannoth themselves, and the Magic guide is the same thing. Fansites and the Knowledge Base do a better job of explaning what those are than the Wiki itself, and that's just a couple out of the 29 or so pages. Makoto 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree. Why should Wikipedia include all this information, when including external links on a few Runescape articles would allow for players to obtain the same and probably better documented information? -- Solberg 01:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Solberg[reply]
  • Strong keep- During the past few months there has been a "crusade" of sorts to delete anything and everything having to do with RuneScape. Several people have put up arguements about this being an encyclopaedia and not a game guide. Well...you're wrong. Have any of you heard of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games? There are long articles about skills, locations, affiliations, and such dealing with the RPGs Everquest, World of Warcraft, Dungeons and Dragons, etc. Is Runescape any different? At 10:00 PM the game has about 150000 people playing. There are as just as many players i9n WOW and EQ. Should we delete them, too? Not a strong enough arguement? Well according to your mindset, Wikipedia is also not a guide to comicbooks or theological information either. Now view Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. The truth is that numerous Wikipedians have dedicated their precious time resaerch and write "guides" to these subjects asper Wikiproject guidelines. Forgive me, but when someone just waltzes in and requests a deletion of everything in this series (without even giving a clear explanation why!) I consider it a slap in the face to all those dedicated reseacers and scribes out there. These articles are sanctioned by Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. If there is a problem with these articles, FIX THEM, DO NOT DELETE THEM FOREVER AND MAKE IT SO THEY CANNOT BE REWRITTEN IN THE FUTURE!!!!-Merlin Storm
    • While this is one of the first reasons someone has proposed to keep the articles, there seems to be a minor flaw.
      Most Notably:
      Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it.
      A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable.

      This is directly from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games page, and is exactly what these articles are violating. --Porqin 05:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is kind of hard to explain what a game is about without explaining how to play it. However, if you feel that you are capable of doing so, please do it so that these articles need not be deleted. Otherwise, do not insult the writing abilities of other Wikipedians. This is a free encyclopaedia and not everyone has the skill of Hemingway. Also, to further my arguement, I suggest that you examine the deletion vote for construction. You will notice that in the course of a week, another user has used another lame excuse to try to get a large amount of RS articles deleted. We have moved from "I don't think they deserve their own articles" to "I think they have poor writing quality". Heres a tip! If you don't like the writing, and you can edit it, DO IT! I am under the impression that you have some beef against RuneScape,Halo, otherwise you would just fix it, other than destroy it all together.-Merlin Storm
    • Please give all and any evidence of me ever showing "any beef against RuneScape" in any of my edits. I have absolutely no opinion about RuneScape, having never played it. I really don't have any "beef with RuneScape", but I really do "have a beef" with pointless, overly long articles that don't belong here, hence the AFD. RuneScape is possibly the biggest offender, but yes, it also applies to other games - but this doesn't mean that those articles belong here either (I've also explained why the Everquest articles aren't as bad). I also think rather than making it personal, maybe you should respond tothe points in the AFD? You haven't given a good reasosn why these articles should not be deleted (except possibly Skills, which I can accept could be expanded without overcruft). Halo 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have never played RuneScape before, Halo, how do you know that these articles are "fancruffy"? It seems to me that the best person to write an article about a subject is someone knowledgable about the subject (hence "fans"). Which would would you rather read- an article about JFK by a historian or Random Joe? In your logic, a man fom Uganda could get on the computer and argue that the JFK article is only valid to Americans and not to the rest of the world. Which means that someone with no knowledge about the entire subject, can come in and request it to be deleted with some lame excuse thats only half true. How can someone with no knowledge of RuneScape possibly know the value of the King Black Dragon? This is why I am inclined to think you have a beef against RuneScape. You, someone who has "never played it" before waltzes in saying how these entire articles are pointless and of low quality? I don't buy it. How in her name would you know that these are pointless if you have no knowledge of any thing in the game? I they are "overly long articles" then take advantage of the fact that this is an encyclopaedia that anyone and everyone can edit! But by no means are these articles "pointless". They have just as much point and relevancy as any other game article series. Can we please stop the argueing-this deletion is not valid.-Merlin Storm
    • An encyclopaedia is supposed to explain something to someone who hasn't played the game or doesn't know about a subject - it's not supposed to tell you everything about every topic ever in existance. I don't know about the subject, therefore I am the INTENDED audience to these articles... you've basically confirmed my point in saying that these articles are only relevent to people who play the game therefore they ARE fancruft which isn't wanted here. Articles that are only relevant to a small amount of enthusiastic fans (people who play RuneScape) don't belong here. Game, set and match. An article about JFK I'd want written so that if I didn't know who he was, I could find out about it, each point explained to me. I would not want an individual page about JFK's toilet habits though, which is what these pages are akin to. These articles are useless to non-RuneScape players. All these reasons have already been explained, and you've explained no reasons why my nomination is "invalid" according to any policies. Long rants are not going to change the fact that you seem to be blinded by some sort of bias towards the game rather than taking it independently, such as I did, and realised these articles did not belong here. Maybe you should go to the Runescape Wiki, where these articles will be actively encouraged? Halo 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if deletion not void RuneScape is already in the top 5 most edited articles and is already large. It cnanot take merging any information back into it. Also, this whole bundle was up for AFD only a few months ago, so doesn't that make the deletion void? J.J.Sagnella 09:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A no consesus vote from a month ago is not a reasoning for a speedy keep, which is what your vote seems to be. Wickethewok 15:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to remind people who are "voting", please give reasons including policy, and a reminder that AFD is not a vote - it's a discussion - and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Halo 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beleive he talking about the vote in which it was fully agreed that Constructioon, Magic, Prayer, Cooking, Crafting, Skills, and Runecrafting have relevancy in Wikipedia. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runecrafting) I beleive that these articles should atleast be spared- the discussion was only about a week ago.-Merlin Storm
  • Comment - I would like to point out that User:Dtm142 posted in Talk:RuneScape and Portal talk:RuneScape: The RuneScape series has gone up for deletion again. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination). I encourage all of you to vote on this. Dtm142 16:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC). As such, I would like to remind all that AFD is a discussion, /not/ an election and that it isn't down to "votes". An inaccurate notice in the RuneScape article and Portal:RuneScape has also appeared at the top, stating:[reply]

Note: Each article in the RuneScape series are being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
I'm not convinced that putting that notice at the top of the RuneScape page is fair game, particularly as it implies that even the main RuneScape article, which should exist, is being deleted but I'm wary of changing it, particularly because of some of the accusations levelled at me in this AFD debate. I'm also wondering where to find the "if someone asked you to vote" template is. Halo 15:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Top 10 reasons to keep: One: Merging is Not an option, all the bigger articles are too long. Two: RuneScape is the 6th or 5th most edited article on wikipedia, meaning all those smaller articles are big-ticket items despite their size. Three: I don't see many other MMO games getting attacked, these AFDs seem to be of a personal dislike, and not for any professional reasons. Four: All comments are researched and factual, per in-game and the runescape knowledge base. Five: RS has a minor impact on real life, as despite RS rules, people sell RS gold, accounts, "cheats" on EBay Six: Another Real Life part is the fact that most likely, 2m people have played at one point in time. Seven: The game has several historical referances in the form of descriptions. One example is items from Monty Pithon stuff. Eight: I still don't see how this qualifies, as it does NOT violate WP:NOT or any afd policy. Nine: Really no physical need to get rid of articles. Ten: The RuneScape articles attract many new editors who raise the amount of information on wikipedia. If you have a problem with a comment I made, put it Here with the subheading of the reason's number, as well as below. Thank you, p00rleno 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. I agree, merging is not an option. Deletion is. There's too many articles, too much information that doesn't belong here that needs to go.
  • 2. The amount of edits do not mean anything.
  • 3. I'm not "attacking" any games. Very few games have almost 30 articles written about the most intricate details, and they don't belong here.
  • 4. Not all comments are researched. Out of all the articles, only 3 or 4 actually have references.
  • 5. I don't understand the relevance of the point. I'm not here arguing RuneScape doesn't deserve a page, I'm arguing it doesn't deserve more than two or three pages at most.
  • 6. The fact 2 million people have played it is fine. That's why RuneScape itself deserves an article. Not 28 detailing the intrinsical details about everything involved, things that don't stand alone... then it becomes Fancruft and game guides which don't belong here.
  • 7. I don't understand the relevance of the point.
  • 8. Wikipedia is not a Game Guide. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", there's no references in most of the articles. The articles don't estabilish notability of themselves.
  • 9. I understand Wikipedia is not paper. This DOES NOT mean that Wikipedia is "indiscriminate collection of information"
  • 10. Completely irrelevent. I am not going to repeat my comments in your talk (keeping discussion all on one page), but I'll happily reply to them here. Halo 17:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These articles are not original research, as the game itself serves as a valid primary source. Articles on books or movies with few or no references beyond the works themselves are not deleted as "original research" -- a similar standard should be applied here. The massive popularity of this game clearly establishes notability for all of the articles listed. Finally, it hasn't been demonstrated that the deletion of the Runescape articles would improve Wikipedia. A few articles in Wikipedia have been so badly written, so massively biased, or concern such frivolous subjects that their presence is an embarrassment -- for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Instant music. The Runescape articles, however, clearly don't match this description, and are valuable to readers who want to learn about the details of Runescape. Thus, retaining these articles offers significant advantages, but no significant disadvantages. John254 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Merlin_Storm said 'It is kind of hard to explain what a game is about without explaining how to play it'.

Er,... 'Runescape is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG)in which players, shown on the screen as customized avatars, can see and interact with each other. Players can set their own goals and objectives, deciding which of the available activities they wish to pursue. They can increase their experience (train) in any of the available skills from runecrafting to construction, complete quests, develop skills, merchant, or just hang out and chat.' There should be a prominent link to wikia:runescape or Portal:RuneScape and all the fancruft, which is NOT encyclopedic, and IS a game guide, should be moved there. --JanesDaddy 00:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wikipedia:Fancruft "is an essay... not an actual policy or guideline", and thus does not provide a policy justification for the deletion of these articles. Furthermore, the statement that "Wikipedia is not a game guide" is not actually present in the policy page linked to: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Finally, there is appears to be no satisfactory explanation as to why maintaining the Runescape articles is harming Wikipedia -- or why the existence of the Runescape articles merits the expenditure of significant amounts of time on repeated, and so far unsuccessful, AFD filings. John254 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Number Eight states that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's." The articles, while providing extremely detailed descriptions of the minutia of Runescape, do not, in general, seem to provide "advice... suggestions, or... 'how-to's." The overall focus seems to be on providing information about the game, not on explaining how the game is best played. To the extent that some of these articles do provide some amount of instruction, the proper solution would seem to be to remove the offending passages, not to delete a large number of articles that are mostly consistent with Wikipedia policies. John254 02:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before you post any more misleading comments, please reread the link that you posted, and navigate your way to number 8. I will copy exactly what it says the sentence after the one you posted: This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. --Porqin 05:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My comments are accurate. The policy does not use the term "video game guides" in the context of "Wikipedia is not a video game guide". Instead, "video game guides" is used merely as an example to illustrate the general principle that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's". The context in which the term "video game guides" is used necessarily affects its meaning. If the policy stated that "Wikipedia is not a video game guide", one might justifying in claiming the following:
(a) These articles treat video games in extensive detail.
(b) Articles which treat video games in extensive detail are video game guides.
(c) Therefore, by (a) and (b) these articles are video game guides, which are prohibited by policy.
However, since the term "video game guides" is used as an example of "instruction manuals", it should be recognized that "video game guides" that are not "instruction manuals" are obviously not being given as examples of "instruction manuals". Therefore, it is reasonable, in this context, to limit the construction of "video game guides", so that the term only describes articles that are, in fact, "instruction manuals". It would follow that if an article is not an "instruction manual", it cannot be a "video game guide." Since "video game guide" is, abstractly, a fairly vague and uncertain term, I have chosen to focus on the policy statement that "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's". I believe that I am correct in my claim that these articles are not largely comprised of "advice... suggestions, or... how-to's". To take "video game guides" out of context, and state that "Wikipedia is not a video game guide" seems to miss the point. John254 06:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You completely overanalyzed, and twisted the words to make them read exactly as you want them to. But you seemed to go through some convoluted logic proof, that doesn't accurately take the policy for what it is. It clearly states that "advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain 'how-to's" are forbidden, and the following are not permitted as being a subset of the aforementioned policy (("This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes.")). This list isn't fully inclusive of every violation of the policy, but the ones listed are definitely in violation of the policy. Also, I think it is fairly well established that these articles do go into great detail. However, giving the level of detail, and the meaninglessness to any non Runescape gamer, that it can be concluded that these articles are indeed in the video game guide category. (This post is a very good summary of why the articles do not belong here) --Porqin 07:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Despite the claim that "An encyclopaedia is supposed to explain something to someone who hasn't played the game or doesn't know about a subject - it's not supposed to tell you everything about every topic ever in existance...", Wikipedia actually contains numerous articles about a number of highly specialized subjects that are only useful to readers who have a significant quantity of background knowledge. For instance, consider our article on Measure (mathematics). Would this be characterized as "mathcruft" since it is written so as to be incomprehensible to readers without the necessary mathematical background? Is Measure (mathematics) going to be subjected to repeated AFD filings? Where will the deletion end? John254 15:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mathematics is a field of knowledge. Fields have many components. The article about measure simply explains what measure is. This is not "mathcruft" because the field of mathematics encompasses several unique encyclopaedic topics. Runescape is not its own field of knoowledge. If you want a mathematics example, think of it this way: improper integrals merit an explanation. A page discussing a specific improper integral, or, say, "Skills and techniques used to solve improper integrals," or something to that degree, would, in my opinion, be "mathcruft." In a similar sense, Runescape merits its own page, but specific aspects of it do not. GassyGuy 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I waited to even read this AfD and the associated articles because I wanted to see what everyone had to say, but most of the folks voting for keep are either doing so because they don't believe these articles are game guides (which addresses only one of the points raised in the nomination) or are making arguments that demonstrate the notability of RuneScape, but not the articles actually being discussed. Therefore, I have to conclude that, while RuneScape is certainly notable, all of these skills are not and do not belong in a general encyclopaedia, especially when there is a wiki specifically set up for this kind of content. GassyGuy 08:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked at many high-quality articles, and I noticed they usually have 5-10 short sections which summarize aspects of the article topic, with full articles covering each aspect in greater detail. We don't want the RuneScape article to become too long, do we? The sub-artixles may be a little crufty, but that can be fixed. And WP:NOR is always used as an excuse to delete useful information. Finally, with the amount of vandalism the RuneScape article receives, I have a slight reason to doubt the good faith of this AFD. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to point out I've been editing for over a year, contributed heavily to the Brand New page (which does meet WP:MUSIC before anyone AFDs), and I have never vandalised anything (no test templates on my talk page). I am certainly NOT a vandal, and I've described my reasoning for this AFD. I honestly don't believe you can have 28 articles about a relatively minor subject and leave them only "a little bit crufty". -Halo 10:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cant see reason to delete these articles as a group some topics may be better served by being merged into more general subtopics. What I do have an issue with is that this is creating precedent to change Wikipolicy that should be discussed in a wider forum. The deletion of these as a group will justify the deletion of other articles, on topic where they appeal to a small band of editors and readers Gnangarra 12:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge similar topics into larger, single articles since many of these articles are well written yet small (or contain much non-notable info). It would be a shame to see so many well-built articles which help people who play this game disappear, so merging things like monsters, enemies, and gods into one thing such as characters. Please note that I haven't ever played this game, so someone more familiar with the information would do a better job at streamlining this idea. I know this game is quite popular with the younger demographic on the internet, and I see that a large amount of these keep/delete votes are correlate with age and familiarity with the topic. Well, just because a person does not know of a topic very well, or because it plays to a younger age group, does not mean it is any less important than someting else in the encyclopedia. Things that cater towards older teens and adults such as Stargate (another topic I don't know outside of this encyclopedia) seem to have a large amount of information) as well as information like this from Andromeda (TV series) usually escape the fancruft pogroms.....which is wonderful! They all should. If wikipedia is the encyclopedia for everyone, built by everyone, why base what is notable canon and non-notable canon off of traditional literary ideals? And to delete a series because of vandalism? Articles can be semi-protected if it is becoming that bad. While deletion of certain unneeded portions of information is in order, it is quite ludicrous to delete thousands of edits off of a few wikiessays and complaints about vandalism. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know....more like a person who wants to know more about it...after all, how does one write enough about this topic without it inevitably helping people who play it? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 16:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The RuneScape articles are not "game guides". Consider the passage about glassblowing in Crafting (RuneScape), in comparison to a passage about the same activity from a genuine "game guide":

Wikipedia:

In order to make items by glassblowing, players must have a glassblowing pipe. They must have seaweed to burn into soda ash and sand, which are heated together in a furnace to make molten glass. The molten glass can then be blown in items such as vials, which are predominantly used in the herblore skill, lantern lenses, which are used to facilitate travel in dark caverns such as the slayer dungeon in Lumbridge Swamp, and orbs, which are used by P2P players in crafting battlestaffs.[1]

RuneScape Wiki:

Glass is a members only part of the crafting skill. You will need

  • A glass-blowing pipe, obtained from Entrana.
  • Buckets of sand. There are sand-pits in Yanille, on Entrana, and in the Lost City. Just use an empty bucket with a sand-pit to get a bucket of sand. If you complete the Hand in the Sand quest you can get about 60 buckets of sand a day delivered to your bank free of charge if you talk to Bert in Yanille.
  • Soda ash, which is made by burning seaweed on a range or fire. There are numerous seaweed spawns on Entrana, on Karamja, or it can be fished using a big net.
  • When you have all the ingredients, use a bucket of sand and soda ash in a furnace to create molten glass.
  • Use the glass-blowing pipe with the molten glass to blow various items.[2]

The passage from the Wikipedia article is merely descriptive of glassblowing, while the passage from the RuneScape Wiki provides detailed advice and suggestions as to how glassblowing is to be accomplished. John254 19:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Delete all', but before deletion, transwiki to RuneScape Wiki. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP ALL - VERY STRONGLY STATED - KEEP ALL There are a lot of passionate pleas, accusations, answers, and crap in all that mess above here, but it all comes down to this. If Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then the people who edit are going to write about the things that they (1) love or (2) hate. In the case of RuneScape, it is usually written about by those who love it and then vandalized by those who hate it. Some have a marginal ability to write; some are mere children who do their best. To go in and wipe out all that work, all that time, and all that effort would devastate some of those people, to the point that many may never return. How can driving off who knows how many editors, good or bad, be good for this endeavor? Yes, I agree, these articles need a lot of work. I have spent a lot of time editing them myself. I spend part of almost every day cleaning up the messes that people inadvertently or purposefully make of them. I am a lover of the game (and just for the record, I am not a child or a teen - I am an adult woman with children of my own, teens who also play the game), and for that reason, I would like to see the articles remain with the chance to finish the cleaning up, merging, and transwiking that need to be done and that has been being done for several months now. One of my goals in editing these articles has been to decrease the amount of game guide information slowly, so that there is no culture shock as the articles are transformed into the best set of informational articles ever written on this, or any other, game. It isn't easy to keep all "instruction" out of an article about a game, but we are getting there. We just need more time to get it right. I hate to assume bad faith, but it seems that someone or a group of someones, has taken a dislike to the RuneScape articles and set out to destroy them or to distract those of us who edit them away from improving them with this series of AFD's. I say to the admins KEEP all the articles at this time and let us finish the merging that is already planned, and to the deletionists, get a life that doesn't involve the destruction of countless hours of work by many people, especially since these articles aren't hurting you or anyone else and do not violate any Wikipedia policies in any material way. Xela Yrag 06:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would refer you to WP:CIVIL, and also, after saying they should be kept because of strong emotional attachments to the articles, to this article. The work can be preserved in a transwiki to the Runescape wiki or something to that degree. I have already said my piece about how notable/encyclopaedic specific aspects of a notable entity are, so I will leave it there, although I'm not sure what an immaterial policy violation is. GassyGuy 09:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Comparison Only[edit]

This AfD appears as more a dislike of articles that have any association with fancraft. Yet there are larger projects on Wikipedia that being harassed like RuneCraft articles are. He is another wikiproject based on fancraft for comparison. If volume of and presentation of the Runecraft is the problem this project has 10 articles with their own category dedicated purely to web fan pages. Gnangarra 05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars[edit]

has 26 subcategories and 5 articles

Star Wars films[edit]

Subcategory of Star Wars has 4 subcategories and these 20 articles Anchorhead Story of Star Wars Blue Harvest Chenini Cultural impact of Star Wars Empire of Dreams The Hero with a Thousand Faces The Hero's Journey The Making of Star Wars Original trilogy (Star Wars) Philosophy and religion in Star Wars The Power of Myth Prequel trilogy (Star Wars) Sequel trilogy (Star Wars) Star War The Third Gathers: The Backstroke of the West Star Wars (radio) Star Wars opening crawl Star Wars prequel trilogy references to the original trilogy Star Wars sources and analogues Star Wars: Where Science Meets Imagination Themes in Star Wars

category:Star Wars fandom[edit]

sub category of Star Wars , has 2 subcats and these articles 23 articles 501st Legion Star Wars canon Chewbacca Defense Docking Bay 516 Fan criticism of George Lucas FidoNet Star Wars Echo Han shot first Lori Jareo Jedi Jedi census phenomenon Life Day List of cultural references to Star Wars One Man Star Wars Trilogy (play) Star Trek versus Star Wars Star Wars Celebration Star Wars Insider Star Wars Technical Commentaries Star Wars fan fiction Star Wars kid Star Wars: Second Strike Steve Sansweet Stormtrooper effect Timetales

Category:Star Wars websites[edit]

subcategory of fandom, no subcategories, with these 10 articles 501st Legion Southern Outpost Jedidefender Star Wars Databank Star Wars Technical Commentaries Super Console Wars SuperShadow The Unofficial Clone Wars Site TheForce.Net Timetales Wookieepedia

Message left at Star Wars project[edit]

AfD RuneScape[edit]

There is currently a proposal to delete all articles for RuneScape as they are based on fancraft and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. As this extensive project and its articles can also be considered as fancraft I have utilised for comparison only a selection of 4 categories and approxiamately 60 articles from your project to demostrate the scope of what is being proposed.

This discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (2nd nomination).

None of the articles from your project mentioned in this discussion are proposed for deletion, this notice is only to advise interested parties of these article that these pages have been referred to at AfD. Gnangarra

  • Several things to say here. First and foremost: irrelevant. We're not discussing the merits of Star Wars. Second: There has been some Star Wars stuff put to AfD, and more of it has survived than I think should have. However, the argument that the existence of some unencyclopaedic content means we have to allow all unencyclopaedic content is fallacious. However, you are welcome to nominate any Star Wars or other articles which you think merit deletion, and I'm sure you'll get some agreement. I would move that this entire discussion be moved to the talk page of this, as it has no real bearing on the AfD at hand. GassyGuy 05:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not irrelevant as the basis for deletion is fancraft articles this is an example of another project substancially larger than RuneScape that would also be a potential AfD target of deletionist based purely on the arguements being presented here. Gnangarra 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also this applies to a number of other projects and associated articles. I agree this isnt a discussion about the merits of Star Wars, but it is a discussion about the foundation of all projects similar to RuneScape. Gnangarra 05:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mortal Kombat Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update Wikipedia:WikiProject Tycoon Computer Games Wikipedia:WikiProject The Elder Scrolls Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga Wikipedia:WikiProject Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoids Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokemon and there are many more. They offer topics similar to articles of project RuneScape. All of these are entry level topics that introduce wikipedia to a wider audience and increase the number of editors that continue to build this project. Its actually to fallicious and mallicious to continually attack one group of articles while ignoring all similar articles. Gnangarra 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This isn't a debate about unrelated WikiProjects. If there are other bad articles out there, they, too, should be examined. But thats unrelated to this AFD. Maybe use the talk page for some of the stuff you're bringing up, as its cluttering up this page. Wickethewok 06:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blah, this page is 26 AfD's wrapped into one so it's inherently cluttered. Hyenaste (tell) 06:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to note that there is a concerted effort at the Star Wars Wikiproject to de-cruft Star Wars-related articles. The project has recently had three articles promoted to featured status. I would also like to point out that several Star Wars-related articles were recently deleted because of cruft. My suggestion to RuneScape folks is to become intimately familiar with Fiction on Wikipedia and especially Writing about Fiction. Dmoon1 06:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I really don't think it's right to lump all the articles together like this. Giving examples from a select bad few does not justify deleting the whole lot. These articles vary in quality enormously. Some are bad, but some are very good. I've supported deleting individual fancrufy articles in the past, but can't support an overly sweeping move like this, as some of the articles in this set are fine. Taking the example of the "Kalphite Queen page" which isn't even the easiest to defend, and addressing each of your points in turn:
"Have no relevance outside the game whatsoever". If you wanted to find out about roughly what RuneScape is about then info about some of the major original characters (which can be understood without having played the game) is surely relevant. You don't have to be a RuneScape player to be interested in how different games structure their economy, story line, or characters. If you're not interested then how did you even get to the page?
"Completely unresearched. There's no references in any of the articles". Just because there's no references doesn't mean it's unresearched! If you want references add some, it's not a reason to delete the article. Ironically some people in this same AFD are arguing the articles should be deleted because all the info can be found elsewhere anyway. This is the easiest to defend because these articles are really really blantantly not original research, they just need more references.
"These are /most definitely/ game guides". No they aren't - using the "Kalphite Queen" example again. The page in question tells you what the kalphite queen is, why it's notable, but DOESNT give any tactics on how to kill it at all! If it were a game guide it would surely be focussed on the best way to defeat it, not the environment in which it resides.
"A quote from RuneScape dungeons:". Quoting a bad section from an individual article does not justify deleting all 28. It proves nothing with respect to your sweeping AFD.
"Look at the articles themselves". Good idea - why don't you?
"They don't attempt to establish notability". Another sweeping remark with no basis in fact. Yet again using the RuneScape monsters examples, only the 6 strongest monsters in the game have a page. The article clearly establishes that those are the most notable on the basis of being the 6 most powerful and hence the 6 most iconic, and relevant to non players. If a RuneScape film or book were made they would surely be the most likely to feature. If pages were made for every monster in the game ala pokemen then I'd agree, we wouldn't want a "runescape chicken" page, but this section at least clearly establishes which facts are most notable, only writes about those, and does so in an encylopedic style rather than a gameguide style.
And IMO that's not even using the best examples, pages like RuneScape skills, and RuneScape economy are even easier to defend. It seems to me like you are trying to get rid of articles which have previously been voted keep in AFD, by lumping them together with some less good articles. Hence I feel this nomination is invaild.

Runefire 06:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is about all fan based articles to select one group then continually AfD their articles with the reasoning its fan craft is creation of new wikipolicy and that once the precedent is set all other article will AfD for exactly the same reason. To hide behind erroronous statements of unknown copyright violations is mallicious and unfounded. What is being discussed here is where fan/web sourced articles are part of this community encyclopedia and all affect article needs to assessed not just one small group. Gnangarra 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Continually requesting the deletion of articles doesnt aid the editors in improving the articles. Gnangarra 06:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First off, the talk about WikiProject as a whole is not what this discussion is about, and this is taking up a ridiculous amount of space on this page. I still say this belongs on a talk page. However, consider this: Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. True, it's not paper, but it's still not an indiscriminate collection of information. So, consider notability. Is RuneScape notable? I would say yes. I imagine most would say yes. That's probably why RuneScape has not been nominated. The rest of these, however, have no real general interest notability. If a person is looking for information about Runescape in a general encyclopaedia, they should find an article about what the game is. All of this other stuff is outside the realm of this resource and much better suited for the Runescape wiki. I am not saying that one or two subpages are not viable, but, for the most part, these topics do not merit coverage. As for all the rest of this stuff about the philosophy of wikiprojects, the merits of requesting deletion, etc., this really isn't the proper forum. GassyGuy 06:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with GassyGuy that this isnt the proper forum to delete a complete project and all its articles(except one), but this is where the subject was raised. That the reason being given for the deletion equally applies to all similar projects and that the scope of whats being decided and the affects of this decision must be part of the consideration. Gnangarra 07:12, 24 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RuneScape_armour_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1136469128"