Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chains of Honor

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. JIP | Talk 16:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chains of Honor

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Pentasyllabic 15:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also nom.: Call to Arms (Diablo II), another runeword article. --Pentasyllabic 04:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge into an article about this aspect of the game, if there is one. AdamBiswanger1 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• This article doesn't comprise an indiscriminate collection of information. It is an article about an element of the game Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, describing how it is constructed and what its effects in the game are. Please find a reason for nominating it for deletion that can be related to the article. Uncle G 15:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Gamecruft! To Uncle G, section 8 of the "indiscriminate collection" link given by Pentasyllabic specifically mentions that WP is not a video game guide. If this article were to remain, it would mean we (and by "we," I mean you, me, everyone who participates in AfD discussions, and WP in general) were endorsing an article on a piece of armor from a game, which means we'd be endorsing every piece of armor from every game, which means we'd be OK with having an individual article on every item in every video game ever made. I understand why you feel the article should be kept, but (as much as I love video games) I can't support an article on a single piece of equipment from a game. -- Kicking222 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is not a guide to a game. It is a purely descriptive article about an element of the game. Again, please don't abuse the "not an indiscriminate collection of information" policy to mean "not anything that I don't think should be here". If you want something deleted, please give a rationale that actually relates to the article rather than abusing this particular item of policy as some sort of catch-all. Please provide a rationale that explains how and why the article is unverifiable, original research, inherently non-neutral, or doesn't satisfy one of our notability criteria. Uncle G
• Delete "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." --Porqin 15:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • None of which this article is. The word "how" occurs nowhere in the article, for one thing. Please find a reason for deleting this article that actually relates to the article. Uncle G 16:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• You don't need the word how to be in plaintext to ascertain it is a violation of the policy, I think this passage illustrates the how just nicely: "it requires the runes Dol, Um, Ber, and Ist to be inserted into a 4-socketed armor, in that order " --Porqin 18:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete; the recipe for the rune armour is gameguide information, as is the Uses section below. I love D2:LOD, but this is too specific. It belongs on something like Tome of Knowledge. -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• I see no good reason to delete this article. It looks like a good start. I'm rather disturbed that there's people on this subpage who seem to be arguing that, whether they believe it ought to be deleted or not, it's a "violation of policy" and therefore must be nuked. That's not how Wikipedia works, and a long way from how it ought to work. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark, could you expand on your comment about "this is not how it works" a bit? The article is wholly without sources, provides opinions on how to play the game ("good return on investment"), and lacks both context (which is fixable) and relevance (it's too specific). The latter isn't policy, but our First Pillar seems to apply here. -- nae'blis 16:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was, nobody seemed to have bothered making the comments you've just made. The overwhelming impression I've received has been, "Whether I like this article or not, my interpretation of policy says it needs to go", which is (as you know) Not How Wikipedia Works. You're right that the article is unsourced; I ought to rephrase my original statement. I've no objection to a sourced article on this subject. How's that? fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 11:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I've actually seen so many of these laetly that I thought someone had made those statements, but I took a minute to go back and look at the actual article. Thanks for keeping me/us honest. -- nae'blis 17:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both articles per WP:NOT, WP:CRUFT, WP:CVG#Scope_of_information. — MrDolomite | Talk 06:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In light of the discussion thread above, and the apparent balance, or possible lack thereof, between WP:FAITH vs WP:LAWYER, I wanted to state that this narrowly focused CVG-related article is WP:NOT and goes against WP:5P #1. I know many would say I just ironically WP:LAWYERed to support my arguement, but my 2 cents as a WP editor and my gut say delete. — MrDolomite | Talk 06:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• keep please per fuddlemark this article is not a violation of policy Yuckfoo 23:01, 1 August 2006 (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.