Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:RuneScape

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:RuneScape

Fancruft. Inappropriately specific portal about a single game (not even a series with multiple titles). Andre (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'm going to have to disagree as well. I've been playing Runescape for quite a long period now, and I still found this page informative and helpful. I even learned a few things from it. Riak_Farseeker 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Im going to have to disagree, there are several informative pages in the portal that teach what the game is about. I myself have been playing for over a year now and have learned multiple new things about the game. I also see that you participate in the computer and video game wikiproject that deals with games such as pokemon and final fantasy, would you not catagorize that under fan-cruft? Koolaidman 03:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  One of the reasons why I think this portal should be deleted is that, under the guidelines we of the CVG project have developed, this portal looks like the articles we normally delete and move to Wikibooks. Andre (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep This portal made me realize how many articles there are on Runescape. I'll admit the portal is crufty, but I acknowledge the need for a portal when it can catalog so many articles. Xoloz 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, perfectly fine portal. Being specific is no reason to delete things; it's not like the Portal: namespace will overflow. Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Fancruft alone is not a good enough reason for deletion, and it has a lot of articles on the subject. It was decided that the RuneScape series could benefit from a portal shortly after they went up for deletion. Dtm142 22:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - as per WP:SOFTWARE criteria #6 as follows, and as per Koolaidman and Xoloz:

  #1 free MMORPG, Runner-up best online game ST47 22:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It's not the article I want to delete, it's the portal. Andre (talk) 23:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not large enough subject to require a portal. ed g2s • talk 01:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete! I love runescape!
• Keep This series was originally nominated for deletion, and the concensus reached was to keep and to create a portal. We have done this, and it is extending steadily. The portal will grow in time, and has brought the major cleanup of the vast majority, if not all, the RuneScape pages. Also, if this is fancruft, Portal:Warcraft has to go aswell, because theyre both about games - • The Giant Puffin • 20:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

  It's not the fact that it's about games, but that it's about one single game - not even a series! original Warcraft, Warcraft II, Warcraft III, World of Warcraft vs. RuneScape... Andre (talk) 00:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment - RuneScape consists of at least two public games (RuneScape Classic and RuneScape 2). See RuneScape#History and development.SeventyThree^(Talk) 07:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  It may be specific, but it is well maintained, full of good information and deserves to stay. This series was kept before, and this portal was created to help keep the pages intact, and improve the series. It has done both of these, and it is improving every day - • The Giant Puffin • 17:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Pretty specific topic but otherwise a great and regularly updated portal. --TantalumTelluride 23:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you think anything is wrong just say on the talk page and we'll clean it up fro you. J.J.Sagnella 06:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It doesn't appear to break any rules. Hyenaste 09:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Even though it "doesn't break any rules" we have to ask ourselves whether it is valuable. The articles on the game and the categories do a great job of indexing the information on this subject. I started the Portal:Computer and video games, so I'm not against portals alltogether, but I think they should only be used for broad subject areas. jacoplane 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • For an individual game, RuneScape is quite a broad subject. You have locations, dungeons, monsters, weapons, armour, items, quests, events and lot of other parts of the game. There is lots of information on several different aspects of the game. Its not like there are only a few articles. There are 25, which is another benefit of having this portal - it united all the articles and allows them to be expanded and have new ones created. The number of articles has nearly doubled since this portal was started, and all the articles are of good length and content - • The Giant Puffin • 14:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. RuneScape is a pretty major game and we have several good articles on it. If people want to use fancrufty portals and find them useful, I see no reason to delete it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly Keep Incredibly useful on an incredibly popular game. I'm speaking for all the 200000 playing at one time when I type in caps KEEP IT!!! Unsigned comment by 67.80.73.111 - DarthVader 01:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per WP:SOFTWARE. -- Korean alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 14:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• WP:SOFTWARE does NOT appy to Portals, same as with other notability measures - please understand that the criteria for Portals is different (and much more stringent) than the criteria for articles. That being said, Runescape does not appear to be completely inappropriate for a portal, so no vote. Cheers! BD2412 T 00:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -Per ed g2s. It is one little game. If it were Portal:Computer Games, that would be fine, but one tiny little game.....no. It would be just like making a portal on a dollar bill with the serial code 1253-2345-24532-53434-3434. It is too small of a subject to make a portal. --GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 20:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Mostly because it doesn't fail any policies, and as a hard rule articles that don't fail policies should be kept. Furthermore keeping the portal can only aid attempts to organize and improve the information provided. Portals serve as magnifying lenses for the community, serving to bring together editors with an interest in the subject, and given the number of articles the portal collects and monitors, deleting it would do harm to the community and to the long-term health of Wikipedia. (Disclaimer: I've played Runescape and hate it; this isn't about liking or disliking a product) Captainktainer 03:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Runescape--GeorgeMoney^{Talk  Contribs} 03:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Its not a project, its a portal... - • The Giant Puffin • 10:15, 25 April 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.