Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape armour (3rd 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 early closure/speedy keep; last nomination was two days ago. While the deletion policy dictates that most followup nominations come after a pure consensus; this is a controversial AfD series that needs time to settle before another AfD is given — especially since proposals have been made on the keep side. — Deckiller 20:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape armour[edit]

- Andeh 03:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They fail WP:NOT? Which part? "Wikipedia is not a game guide"? Could you please provide an example or examples from the article that violate this? Also, can you please prove that these are rewrites of articles on RuneScape.com? If they're rewrites, they should be {{copyvio}}ed. And WP:OR doesn't apply here: this information is derived from the game, just as information about television shows are derived from the program itself. And could you please provide a link to the page that says to delete articles with a PoV? Thanks. Hyenaste (tell) 09:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Hyenaste and will say Wholehearted KEEP ALL. → p00rleno (lvl 76) ←ROCKS 15:45, Monday May 27 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Except Smithing (RuneScape), these have all been nominated before. The results for all but cooking were no consensus. Cooking resulted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runecrafting keep, so I'm voting Speedy Keep on cooking, and no vote on the others (for now.) αChimp laudare 04:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please give your thoughts and opinions on why it should be kept, just because previous AfDs didn't gain consensus, it isn't really a reason for it to be kept.--Andeh 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe he is only referring to the cooking article which did gain consensus to keep. Hyenaste (tell) 08:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Regardless of previous AfD discussions, these do not belong in this encyclopedia. Picaroon9288|ta co 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and transwiki to RuneScape wiki. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-AfD ended last week, give time for proposed edits to take place.- Merlin Storm 07:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:This time last week, smithing was AfDed. I went ahead and merged it into RuneScape skills, but someone said "that's not process; wait for the afd to end" and reverted it back. Now, two days later, before someone got around to re-reverting it, it's up for deletion again. What's the logic behind that? On that note, is this even allowed? Can someone really just nominate an article for deletion over and over week after week? Eventually, even if by chance, a consensus will be reached to delete. Hyenaste (tell) 08:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Random events is just a list, whilst I can see that they should be mentioned somewhere, listing every random event and detailing what actually happens does not seem useful to someone trying to get a feel for the game. The other articles are examples of scrappy stubs which IMHO don't need individual pages and encourage fancruft padding. I'd suggest that the wiki editors repeat the success of the main RS page by concentrating on the larger pages (IE skills, combat etc.), nailing them down with relevant information, then standing back and looking at what can be split off into seperate articles. Considering that the main page apparently suffers constant revisions, yet still looks so good, repeating that with the larger pages would stop this 'divide and conquer' effect and give those who've slogged away for hours a bit of a break. QuagmireDog 09:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed QuagmireDog's vote for deletion per his request at [1]. John254 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. IMO all major MMORPGs should at most have a "skills" article and a "weapons" article or the like (and any other generalized articles that are relevant): that is reasonable, and it will cut down on the cruft. Dark Shikari 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You're moaning about the wasted space of this article. It has been proven time after time that they deserve to stay and these afds are wasting so much of Wikipedia's space that this should hardly even be considered a discussion anymore. J.J.Sagnella 10:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cooking, at the very least. That particular article reached a clear consensus of "Keep" very recently - it's bad faith to nominate again so soon just because there's a hip new crusade against "gamecruft" on wikipedia. 129.61.46.16 12:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Josh[reply]
  • Close Debate; the last AfD for these articles closed two days ago, officially with no consensus, but several editors, Hyenaste for example, have started merging them together anyway. Give them a chance to finish, for pete's sake! Theres also a major effort in the works to eliminate or at least reduce the fancruft that, admittedly, some of the subpages contain. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would normally vote delete, as I believe these articles are unencyclopedic and contain mostly unverifiable information and doesn't use reliable sources. However, I would like to see some of the proposed merging take place and then see what the RuneScape article landscape looks like. I would not like to see a speedy keep take place, but would like to see this nomination withdrawn for now. It would be far better to have a proper AFD, rather than one filled with comments saying that they haven't had time to complete planned merges and saying keep on the ground of a recent "no consesus". Wickethewok 15:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All too big to merge. Englishrose 16:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Debate, 2 days ago? That's rediculous. What's the point of having AfD if you're just going to re-nominate them if you don't get your way? --PresN 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the last AfD was closed because too many articles were listed together, I've chosen a few articles which are all similar and very game guide'ish.--Andeh 17:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Close this debate, wait a week or two and let editors who work on these articles get them merged or whatever they think is neccessary, then if they're still around and reading like game guides, go ahead and AfD them. syphonbyte (t|c) 17:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why merge content that fails WP:NOT?--Andeh 18:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it fails WP:NOT, then obviously it shouldn't be merged. Like I said, just let this cool off for a few weeks. Whoever edits these articles regularly can merge whatever content is relevant, and the rest can be tossed out. If they don't do that, then go ahead and AfD it. syphonbyte (t|c) 18:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as I'd like to see these go, I have to agree: there's been too much Runescape on AfD recently, and a crusade won't help anyone. Speedy no-consensus without prejudice to a good-faith AfD in a month, when the editors involved have had a proper chance to address the concerns people have raised in these and all the other Runescape articles. — Haeleth Talk 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooh, speedy no consesus... I don't think I've seen one of those before... but I think it may be appropriate in this case. Wickethewok 20:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John QuagmireDog 01:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP And let us finish our merging, editing, compiling, or whatever you want to call it. Enough is enough. I want to repeat my entire diatribe from the last one, but that would take up even more space. Geeeeeeeez!!!!!!! Xela Yrag 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - work in progress... As for the points: 1. Disgree with the "guide" argument, as most of the howto and full lists, for instance, have been slashed. 2. Relevance, no more or less relevant to non gamers, than the detail on many other topics is to non-whatevers. I'd question if there is enough WP-relevant comtent to support individual skill articles though, but maybe enough that skills needs to be split in some way to avoid being over-large .. not a guide, but more than the most minimalistic overview. Also, some editors are contributing on the other wiki, and pulling the history rug from under them would be unhelpful. Ace of Risk 21:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Inclusionist and supporter of the "recycle bin" idea[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. SevereTireDamage 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close to no consensus per above, it is too soon (only two days!) since the last nomination. Is there official policy about how long before the next AfD for the same article (that ended in no consensus) can officially take place? One month? Six months? --SevereTireDamage 11:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Bad-faith nomination. Ace of Sevens 11:52, 27 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_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1147969066"