Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishing (RuneScape)
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 of the debate was delete all three -- Samir धर्म 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mining (RuneScape). Plus, there's an even better article on the RuneScape wiki. --Ixfd64 00:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD appended to include Woodcutting (Runescape).
- Delete per nom. Tevildo 01:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Nick Y. 01:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Deville (Talk) 01:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Coredesat 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom -- Where 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Runescapecruft. --Terence Ong (Chat | Contribs) 03:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No Vote But if you delete these two, delete this one as well. J.J.Sagnella 08:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TrianaC 11:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Woodcutting, too as nom/Sagnella -- GWO
- Delete per Sagnella Just zis Guy you know? 21:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all three per above. JDoorjam Talk 00:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Including woodcutting. Individual activities within a game. Why do we need separate articles on them? We're not a game guide. Kevin_b_er 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain - at the level of detail allowed here, not enough content to support a whole article - and this topic IS well covered by the evolving RS wiki (per nom) - Sacrifice a few articles to the delectionists and hope they give us a bit of peace on the others. Ace of Risk 13:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Skills article. (As for the article on the RS wiki being better, purely opinion. That article is definitely a game guide, which this is not, and has much more strategy and "how-to" information; however, it is also full of poor grammar, spelling problems, and punctuation errors. How that is better than this, I do not understand. And the fansites have already done the game guide thing much better.) Xela Yrag 16:11, 26 June 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.