Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviansie

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 delete. Wikipedia is not a guidebook seicer | talk | contribs 14:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aviansie

Per WP:NOT, a guide to making money in Runscape should not be here. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikpedia is not a how-to. MuZemike (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong snowball delete per WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:VGSCOPE, these are a single type of enemy from a single dungeon in RuneScape, utterly trivial in the grand scheme. Someone another 00:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had a feeling this would snowball like it did, but no speedy delete template seemed to fit, and prod would have probably taken even longer and run the risk of being removed with me noticing. Would you guys say there is sufficient support among the AfD regulars to revamp CSD a little? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably would've prodded it myself if I came across it, but I think trying to leverage on CSD would very well be considered gaming. Just let the AfD play out. If there is a whole bunch of users unanimously voicing to delete, then admin might close it early under WP:SNOW. No one's going anywhere, I don't think. MuZemike 03:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't trying to wikilaywer, honest. I was just thinking, in the future, what if there was a speedy deletion rationale for articles like this? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd just add "speedy delete, if possible" to your rationale, to tip off the admin that if its a clear WP:SNOW case, they can deal with it. But as noted, this really isn't a CSD case. --MASEM 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT#GUIDE easily. Doubtful this can be put into any article under the Runespace topic (individual common monsters rarely get coverage in reliable source), but if can, redirect name to that article. --MASEM 13:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOT#GUIDE, and if a character in Runescape belongs here it's under the name of the game itself. Otherwise, who's to say we shouldn't have thousands of articles for all video game entries? Also, as others have mentioned, the article is written as a how-to. -FlyingToaster (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the guide comments, and simply not that notable. rootology (C)(T) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#GUIDE, as with everyone above. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2008 (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.