Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of MMORPGs
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 Speedy keep, non-admin closure per WP:SNOW, only one "delete" !vote, and no citation of policy from the nominator. Yuser31415 05:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of MMORPGs[edit]
Every MMORPG have different jobs, graphics, quests, that is cannot be compared. KaiFei 15:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree, some aspects cannot be compared, but some can. Some arbitrary parameters of interest were selected and the result was this article. I don't think it needs to be deleted. TSO1D 15:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand, what policy are you saying this article is in violation of and why do you think that it needs to be deleted? The only problem you seem to have is that its scope is too broad? That is not criteria for deletion. NeoFreak 16:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there seems to have been discussion about creating this comparison at the parent article (List of MMORPGs), perhaps discussing with the other editors there or on the talk page of this article would be a better first step than an AFD? Kuru talk 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see how this is a bad article. It promises comparisons and delivers comparisons. It needs organizing, yeah, but AFD is not the cleanup crew. -Ryanbomber 17:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I like the information in this article, but I think it would be better to combine it with List of MMORPGs which lists all of the notable MMORPGs already on Wikipedia. Tarinth 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think it would fit in there..
- Keep; just because the scope is large, doesn't mean it's not possible. ~ EdBoy[c] 21:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 21:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; Do not see why it needs to be removed. Mikm 22:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep useful and maintainable list. — brighterorange (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per NeoFreak. --Jackhorkheimer 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. What is the deletion reason? I see none. --- RockMFR 00:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What is the deletion reason?² I see none.Esurnir 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per NeoFreak. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Nom has not asserted any reason to delete. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see how this is a bad list - it isn't "listcruft" or a game guide. Keep unless someone can find a policy that this is violating. Koweja 07:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too broud FirefoxMan 18:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No reason to delete Da Big Bozz 21:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - As per pretty much everyone else above me. Greeves 00:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks fine to me, although could use a few more sources. --Alan Au 19:33, 2 January 2007 (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.