Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Runeterra

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 redirect to League of Legends#Setting and lore. There's consensus that this fictional world is not notable. The edits to the article mentioned at the end do not change this, as far as I can tell: they appear to be mostly about various aspects of the video games at issue, and not so much about the fictional world that is supposed to be the topic of the article. Such content can still be added to existing articles, consensus permitting. Sandstein 14:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Runeterra

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Runeterra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG. Full of fancruft. Fails WP:NVG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect though not apposed to a Delete and Redirect. "Runeterra" is a clear search term for the game and should redirect there, but I cant see any of this content applying there at all as its all in-universe and sourced to game-related material. Maybe a brief statement of the realms, but not anywhere to this level. I don't see much material that can be rescued so a delete is possible. --Masem (t) 21:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Masem: The article has been massively improved since you last commented here. Just wanted to let you know.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect to Legends of Runeterra as a valid alternative to deletion. Clearly not an independently notable fictional setting, but as Masem pointed out, surely a valid search term for the main game, which includes this word in the title. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to League of Legends#Setting and lore as most obvious target. A rather fancrufty article that has no demonstration of independent notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep most of the offending material has been excised, and the article is being brought up to standards for a proper article.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn vote, I no longer have a stance on this particular afd.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Changed vote again. I've come to the conclusion that Runeterra "is" the League of Legends lore. And as such the article that had been previously been forked of is literally a fork and nothing more.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Please explain how this article meets the notability standards. The cruft being gone is good, but now there's not much of an article and no establishment of why this fictional world is notable outside of League of Legends and Legends of Runeterra. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Red Phoenix: The topic itself certain meets WP:GNG. Just look at all the references in the article: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Having a number of references means nothing if the references are passing details or cruft. I want to point out that there are very few cases where a fictional setting warrants an article of its own. When would it? When it's relevant not just as part of a game or a book. Why? Because otherwise, it's all WP:INUNIVERSE and not meeting a worldwide perspective of someone who would know nothing of the topic. A good example of this is Death Star, which only exists because it has numerous cultural influences outside of just being part of Star Wars. Does Runeterra rise to that standard? Red Phoenix ^talk 20:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

References

@Red Phoenix: The article is no longer solely about Runeterra, it's been expanded to include the entirety of the League of Legends universe, supplemented by content that has already been written and included in the main article. Comparing this to the Death Star is an unrealistic standard and the article only needs to meet WP:GNG for inclusion, but for that matter it definitely has it's own cultural impact.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

An article that complies with not being solely WP:INUNIVERSE is an unrealistic standard? I get that you're trying really hard here, but let me set the hard line for you: Prove it. If it has cultural impact outside of League of Legends, show that. If it does not, it should not be an independent article. It is then best covered in the main article without puffery. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: Check the article again (restored the more lengthy version) only 793 words (4,881 characters) in two paragraphs out of the 1,461 words 9,030 characters can be construed as being in-universe. But the reality is there is detail about the development of the world and commentary from developers interlaced with in-universe statements.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Redirect there are references but not enough to make it pass a stand alone article. fails wp:sigcov. Dtt1^Talk 15:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to League of Legends#Setting and lore, agree with Masem, Zxcvbnm, and Red Phoenix. No sigcov of the world/universe itself at this time. -- ferret (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ferret: check all the reference I listed again. Also it's been the subject of academic writing and in WP:PRINT.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Ref #1 - Passing mention of Runeterra in context of a game announcement, no lore or setting details or sigcov. #2 has actual lore details/setting but as a League dedicated fan site, I do not consider it independent. Reliability would also be questionable. #3 Some world information here, reliability questionable, no real critical analysis just cruft details. #4, like #1 is a passing mention in the context of a game announcement. #5, no coverage of the setting or lore, product announcement. #6 Two paragraphs, almost all of it fluff about "Have you been wondering about the world?". Really? Significant coverage? #7 Definitely has some lore details, but all within the context of a game and how to build decks. My !vote stays the same, there's nothing in any of this that shows an independent topic. As for academic writing and PRINT, offline sources are of course acceptable but you can't simply claim they exist, some sort of evidence is required. What academic writings? Which prints? -- ferret (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC
      • Also check the Red Bull web article I linked into the article. The story of League of Legends was written about by an academic in this article:Bembeneck, Emily Joy. Matthew Wilhelm Kapell (ed.). "Game, Narrative and Storyworld in league of legends". The Play Versus Story Divide in Game Studies: Critical Essays. Some google scholar hits I haven't looks over yet: [1]--Prisencolin (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
        • @Ferret: This comment here seems to have gone un-replied, so I want to reiterate that this topic is of academic significance and has been written about by real scholars.--Prisencolin (talk)
          • I don't owe you a reply and counter to every comment you make. I've made my position on this topic clear. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
            • Of all the arguments I've made, the fact that this topic has been written about in academia might be the important one, even thought it's only something I've uncovered in the past few days while arguing this AFD.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
              • You're assuming a lack of response indicates a lack of review or comprehension by participants. The issue remains the same. Coverage is of League of Legends. What you've failed to demonstrate to a fair sized participation in this AFD is that there is significant coverage of the world itself that is sufficiently independent of the game. I do not plan to reply to this AFD again. -- ferret (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
                • @Ferret: The time I finally bring up some irrefutable evidence of this subject's lasting sigifcance, and you don't respond but instead you say this, so be it. I can't stress enough that this topic has been covered in scholarly literature, thus meeting whatever floating final criterion for standalone article notability exists here.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect, way too in-universe without any WP:SIGCOV. Really trivial stuff. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
• @Soetermans: @P,TO 19104: @Ferret: @Red Phoenix: @Masem: Some more reliable source covering the topic, demonstrating WP:SIGCOV. (will be updating this list): Marshall, Cassandra (July 13, 2016). "The ups and downs of League of Legends' lore reboot". PC Gamer.Stoneback, Robert (5 September 2014). "League of Legends Will Reboot Story, Ditch Old Lore, in Future Updates".

I'm not convinced that coverage by these sources would merit its own article. We need creation, development, reception, that kind of stuff. It's still WP:GAMECRUFT, mostly relying on in-universe details. These sources can make a properly referenced section on the main article. (P.S. my username, like my actual last name, is written with a capital letter, without one I don't get the ping; vice versa ferret is written without a capital letter :) ). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've not seen anything that will change my !vote yet. -- ferret (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed my mind about my !vote either. I don't see enough weight to keep this as a standalone article. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: Check the article again: for disclosure the content been moved to League of Legends universe and lore. It's only around half about about in-universe content. Also there's a reception section that's been added, and even though it consists of two sentences it will be added shortly.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

At this point, without all the in-universe fluff, it's three paragraphs long with six references. This can easily be part of League of Legends. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

For anyone reading this discuss, the article has since been restored to the previous version which consists of over 10 paragraphs.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Be aware that I have issued a warning to Prisencolin about disruption in relation to this AFD. During the AFD, the article was moved from Runeterra to "League of Legends universe and lore", which was opposed and moved back to Runeterra earlier today on technical grounds. Following this, Prisencolin stripped most of the content from "Runeterra" and tried to create "League of Legends universe and lore" separately, which I consider a disruptive attempt to circumvent this AFD discussion. I redirected it back. In addition, the absolutely unsuitable League of Legends champion was also created, and I've already redirected it. This was clearly an attempt to get around the previous AFD and AFC declines of Draft:List of League of Legends champions, which he's been forumshopping about. -- ferret (talk) 23:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
• Some of the claims in this discussion are complete nonsense and is clear that anyone commenting here has not actual read the entirety of the article. First: "It's still WP:GAMECRUFT, mostly relying on in-universe details." I will spell it out entirely here:

You think copy-pasting almost an entire article is helping your case? I think it's pretty disruptive for this discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I'm trying to compress the size the text so I can annotate it for this discussion. I'm only doing it because you clearly seem to be unwilling to read the details yourself.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. I think it's time you should WP:DROPTHESTICK, Prisencolin. You're being very disruptive, in this discussion, with League of Legends universe and lore and the deletion review. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

And you think changing the text to an unreadable 60% size somehow invites people to start reading it? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: It's been moved to userspace for now until I can get it looking okay. You need to actually address one of the point I made and actually see the sources instead of cherry picking the article's faults.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: Apologies if I misunderstood you, but if you just admitted that you haven't fully read the article, than I'd think that means your opinion on this matter is invalid until you do.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You'd like me to admit that I haven't read Runeterra? I copy-pasted the text into WordCounter. It's 206 words and takes approximately 45 seconds to read. I've done so three times now. Am I missing something? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: I'm talking about the old version of the article which is 2,163 words 14,588 characters (including references, which should all be looked over) according to WordCounter.net. And that version is not not just all unverified, overly detailed in-univeres information that would bore non-fans of the game. In case the old edit history in unavailable for some reason, I re-copy merged it into the mainspace article.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you should drop the stick and all the accusations that everyone opposed to you either is making bad faith evaluations of the topic, or is part of some conspiracy that hates the game, and let the AFD conclude in due time. -- ferret (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: Systematic bias against this topic even within the gaming community itself is real, let's not be naive. I'm not just pulling these allegations out of thin air. If you need proof I can produce it. In any case note to closer while there appears to be more votes for a redirect than anything. There is no clear consensus what the target should be. Some are pointing to Legends of Runeterra and others to League of Legends. Until one of two can be decided upon, this afd shouldn't be going anywhere today. The fact that there is this confusion is another reason why this topic should exist as a standalone article.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

FYI, that's wikilawyering for you to say that. You know full and well there's not a controversy between editors about the redirect target (otherwise it would have been discussed), and saying that means the article should be kept is ridiculous. You're wikilawyering. Don't do that. Red Phoenix ^talk 02:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix: That might be true if it weren't for the fact that another editor just brought this notion up. Regardless look at the suggestions for redirect being brought up here. Some are saying League of Legends, other Legends of Runeterra, yet others don't even specify which. For a third-party to this discussion it's not clear which it would be. The fact that you threw some policy at me instead of addressing this issue directly confirms this.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I told you to stop wikilawyering and you did it again. No wonder no one is taking you seriously here. You refuse to listen. Honestly, I see no point in trying to reason with you further. Don't ping me again - I don't want to hear more of you repeating the same argument and trying to lawyer your way into getting this article kept. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, if you encounter one of best arguments yet and don’t know how to reply so you just throw some shade and link to some discussion guidelines that’s a sign that this AFD is procedurally flawed. Anyways if you want to bow out without addressing the existence of the scholarly articles as a source, I’ll just reiterate that’s they’re here.-—Prisencolin (talk) 06:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

You have repeatedly suggested that the editors involved in these discussions directly have a bias against the game. There's no way you can prove that, and it's a borderline personal attack against those editors. Stop it. The consensus hear is pretty clear and it's time you started to hear it. Where the redirect ultimately lands is irrelevant, in that the AFD has a clear consensus the topic is not notable. That editors haven't focused on the aspect of the redirect target does not indicate any confusion and certainly doesn't suggest a need for a standalone topic. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I can't say for anyone here on an individual level but it's clear that League of Legends is disliked in certain circles. Nothing personal is meant, but systematic bias is real and I'm just pointing it out. This is not a WP:DEMOCRACY, no amount of votes can change the fact that a redirect one way or the other is a bad idea or that there's enough coverage to justify a standalone article.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Your accusation here is ludicrous. Just because a bias exists out there in the world doesn’t mean it exists here in this discussion with these participants. There’s no evidence anyone here is making comments out of their distaste for the subject. Unless you can back up what you say, stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

You still fail to grasp the notion that we need more significant coverage. But that's okay, it's pretty obvious where this discussion is headed. There's an easy solution to for the redirect: redirect it to Legends of Runeterra, because of the word... Runeterra. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Soetermans: That's not the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT though, League of Legends has been around for around 10 years compared to Legends of Runeterra. In any case over the course of this discussion I've added the significant coverage that is needed, but it seems to be continuously ignored by other editors.--Prisencolin (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment by nominator I would like to reiterate why I nominated this article for deletion:

1. This article has too many primary sources, although PCGamer.com may be somewhat reliable, it is too close to the subject given its industry to solidiy notability. Again, PCGamer.com is an industry source, therefore it is a primary source. We cannot determine the notablity of the article just with that source.
2. Secondly, most of these sources mostly mention the developer of the game or the game itself. These do not determine notability.
3. Even with the poor refs put aside, this article is full of Gamecruft. Anyone reasonable enough would use the WP:TNT.

Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@P,TO 19104: Thank you for coming back to comment on this discussion, but I did want to address the concerns you have.

1. PC Gamer would not be considered a primary source because it is independent of the game League of Legends, it's developers and publishers Riot Games and Tencent and the source itself has been determined to be a reliable source for video game articles as per WP:VGRS. It is only one of the dozens of other reliable sources such as Verge, Kotaku, Polygon, IGN, and the academic paper "Game, Narrative and Storyworld in league of legends" published in the journal: The Play Versus Story Divide in Game Studies: Critical Essays.
2. I don't understand what you mean. Wouldn't the game being mentioned in sources indicate that the topic is notable and not the other way around?
3. In-game information is presented in a WP:PRECISE manner, conforming to MOS:VG to the best degree.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Runeterra features in multiple media, with a ton more upcoming [2]. Discussion of the shared universe of Runeterra is in RS. It not only stands alone based on the RS, but even if you wanted to redirect it there would be no good redirect and a disambig would be the best you could hope for. Jerod Lycett (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
  • There were at least two redirects posed. Either would be acceptable. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge. It’s pretty rare that “fictional video game settings” need their own article. Some info is good. Other is cruft. But there’s not enough to warrant its own article. (Perhaps move some of the content to wikia or something?) Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Leaving out Prisencolin's embarassing attempts to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion with weird, nonsensical allegations, the article boils down to passing mentions in other sources and nothing that constitutes notability. Give me significant coverage, not unrelated comments mentioned in articles that don't actually pertain to the topic. What about Runeterra is so important and noteworthy that it must be covered in its own article? This is easily something that can be summarized in League of Legends, and not something that needs its own page. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment would anyone object to a requested move of this article? I think the article title creates a critical misunderstanding when it comes to assessing significant coverage of this topic in sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  Move to where? The name appears accurate to me as it covers the fictional shared universe of multiple media. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Probably League of Legends lore or League of Legend universe, whatever is more WP:COMMONNAME. The issue is when you have an article like this (Marçal Mora Cantallops; Miguel ÁNgel Sicilia (November 2016). "Motivations to read and learn in videogame lore: the case of league of legends". TEEM '16: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality: Pages 585–591.) which discuss the world of Runeterra, but don't mention it in the title, other editors are inclined to thing "Runeterra" is only mentioned in passing.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Note: Although we've never met, Prisencolin and I became Facebook friends in 2017 because of shared, non-Wikipedia interests, which we then briefly chatted about. I was messaged about this AfD on Facebook Messenger and for general advice on the situation. Except possibly for being done off-wiki – maybe because of my reduced editing – it was otherwise compliant with WP:CANVASS. I brought 2016 League of Legends World Championship to Good Article status and frequently participated in these kinds of discussions. I have recommended that Prisencolin take a step back from this AfD.

Keep. WP:HEYMANN is probably triggered by a major revamp of the article that excised the most problematic, fancrufty elements and refocused it on a real-world perspective. The article has multiple sources listed at WP:VG/RS that discuss League lore in an out-of-universe fashion (e.g. Gangplank's death, reception, etc.). There's also non-video game focused sources such as academic articles that are primarily focused on the lore (e.g. [3]) and the Washington Post. Per WP:SIGCOV, this is sufficient, since these sources go beyond trivial mentions, even if the League universe is not always the main topic of the sources. The length of the article and Runeterra's existence in multiple notable works, including non-Riot properties such as D&D, means it would be hard to upmerge into the already not-short League article and is better as a spin-off. The drama surrounding this AfD isn't good, but based on the sources available, the article should be kept on the merits per WP:NEXIST so it can be improved. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

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.