Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karamja

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. Flowerparty■ 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karamja

Fancruft, very non-notable Island on RuneScape would be over 100 articles if every island/city was included as an article. J.J.Sagnella 16:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but it looks like there's a bunch of other equally-crufty RuneScape-related articles. Ned Wilbury 17:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Care to Point the Finger at the ones in Question? J.J.Sagnella 17:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable fictional island, gamecruft. JIP | Talk 17:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a fairly notable island within RuneScape. 20,000+ GHits. — TheKMan^talk 17:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per ned and per nom MadCow257 17:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. Eivind 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "Fancruft", "gamecruft", or other "cruft" is a poor reason for deleting something, when it actually does have notability to a rather large amount of people. Now ask yourselves, do people find this article useful and informational? I'd say so. Is this article hurting the legitimacy of Wikipedia as a factual source of information? Absolutely not! It's well written, doesn't go overboard in the so-called "cruftiness" in any way. This is for all you deletionists out there: Please consider looking into the notability of a subject, looking into its value as an article, rather than simply pasting "*Delete per nom. -- ~~~~" into its AfD. — TheKMan^talk 15:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep You can clearly see that there is a lot of information about the subject. Its a notable island within RuneScape, and is a useful article. The Warcraft Portal has articles as specific as Bind on Equip with about 3 lines if info. I dont see that up for deletion. This is one of maybe 3 or 4 location articles that do/will exist within the RS Portal. Not every location will have its own page. The only reason this one does is because it is notable, has plenty of information, and is useful. It is also, as mentioned above, well written, structured and wikified. May I also remind you that this is a discussion, not a vote, so putting "Delete per nom" probably wont be counted when it comes to closing the article. Otherwise, we could just make a list of "Keep"s and "Delete"s. - • The Giant Puffin • 16:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopaedic. This belongs in a game guide. Mention at RuneScape, but nothing more. Stifle 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It does not belong in a game guide. You cant give a guide about a location. Plus there are several video game-related pages that are more like game guides, and they are not up for deletion. RuneScape is also being broken up into sub-pages because of its long length (hence the clean up notice on the page) - • The Giant Puffin • 12:19, 12 March 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.