Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape runes
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no clear consensus (but strong majority to keep). Cool Hand Luke 07:29, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
RuneScape runes[edit]
This level of detail about an obscure game is not encyclopedic, and constitutes fancruft. I think it should be deleted. I feel the same about the other RuneScape subpages but will wait to see how this one fares. Foobaz·✐ 06:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge into a single article about the game along with any subpages. The game is widespread enough to warrant an entry of its own but obscure subpages are clutter. Arkyan 07:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Everyking 08:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. J1459 11:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep -- Longhair 12:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep — RuneScape is a commercial online game. — RJH 18:20, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, it's a widely known game. Megan1967 22:30, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge back to a more general runescape page, wikipedia isn't gamefaqs--nixie 08:32, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- While I agree that Runescape is popular enough to merit inclusion, I'd prefer to see some more content and less lists of levels at which a certain skill (or rune) becomes availalable, as the latter is FAQ or manual material. As such, merge. Radiant! 10:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete, or merge into RuneScape any information of general interest not already there. I'm a gamer and was once slightly interested in RS when it was on paper and not yet online, but it isn't really notable in ways that reach outside the roleplaying subhobby. This level of detail isn't encyclopedic, as WP is not a gaming directory. I can't wait for the Ashlee Concert Simulation Module for RuneScape, nor for its article. Barno 16:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think if you can't write your vote without including some insult against another user, subtle or otherwise, your vote shouldn't count. Everyking 17:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- However, WP policy suggests more strongly that if you can't include the reason for your vote, as Everyking failed to do above, your vote won't count. Barno 17:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think if you can't write your vote without including some insult against another user, subtle or otherwise, your vote shouldn't count. Everyking 17:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, if Kingdom of Loathing creator isn't allowed to stay, then RuneScape's, gasp, runes should be speedied already. Grue 12:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as it has no independently verifiable references. If those can be found, keep - David Gerard 00:21, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- ~Delete - too broad and vague. Could be in more categories. jozephb 13:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete: fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect or, if that's not workable, keep. -Sean Curtin 03:07, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it needs a cleanup, and certainly improved, but it deserves to be a part of the information on runescape. The intial reasons for deletion has a problem as well, "This level of detail about an obscure' game is.."- Runescape is the largest online java game, and has more players online at a given moment then CounterStrike, and is among most well known and least obscure mmorpg's. Consider there are close to 10x more people playing it at this moment, then there are wikipedians with over a 1000 edits. MasterRune 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, i'm crossing out "obscure" in my rationale. However, regardless of the game's popularity, minutiae like these are just a drain on Wikipedia's resources. Grand Theft Auto 3 is at least as popular a game, but its article is very clean, concise, and encyclopedic. I love video games and have spent significant portions of my life playing and writing them, but i don't believe that emulating GameFAQs should be one of Wikipedia's goals.
Foobaz·o<23:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- You're right, i'm crossing out "obscure" in my rationale. However, regardless of the game's popularity, minutiae like these are just a drain on Wikipedia's resources. Grand Theft Auto 3 is at least as popular a game, but its article is very clean, concise, and encyclopedic. I love video games and have spent significant portions of my life playing and writing them, but i don't believe that emulating GameFAQs should be one of Wikipedia's goals.
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.