Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape economy

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 and merge what's salvageable into RuneScape. Naconkantari 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape economy

RuneScape economy (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

There has not been enough written about this subject to make it verifiable, and I don't belive it is notable enough for inclusion anyway. The economy of a game does not deserve its own article. There was a previous AfD debate which reached no consensus, which I will find the link to. Amarkov ^babble 02:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: this article has had a previous AfD discussion (albeit bundled in with a bunch of other stuff), which can be found here. -Amarkov ^babble 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. There's very little here that isn't just boiled down general economic theory. --humblefool® 10:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete little of this is RuneScape-specific, and the general topic is better covered (and far better referenced) at Virtual economy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fancruft, we don't need such a specific topic on RuneScape's economy. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Because this is a part of a series about different aspect of the game, we should judge them all together, I think. Why to delete "economy" and let "weaponry"?--Ioannes Pragensis 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because last time that was tried,it ended up in a big huge mess. See the previous AfD discussion I cited. -Amarkov ^babble 14:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Just because one article was deleted for a certain reason doesn't mean it should be apply to all articles. I beleive that these discussions should be about the article itself rather then comparing it to other AfDs. --Pinkkeith 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape weaponry and RuneScape armour are being merged and redirected to RuneScape combat soon, rewritten to be much more encyclopedic. No need to worry about it much longer. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into RuneScape, there's plenty of space in there now. Was it this article or RuneScape community or both that were split from the main to keep the page size below 35kb? Meh. A good replacement could be, in the main article; a {{seealso}} to Virtual economy (per Starblind) and a short paragraph about how RS differs from other MMORPGs - ie, having a worryingly large arms trade, and trading fish. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 23:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Seems for too crufty for my liking. The Kinslayer 17:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect to virtual economy. Garrett^Talk 10:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel that redirect would not be useful. The article you wish to redirect it to is a general article about virtual economy while the current article is a specific discussion about the economy of one MMORG. Your suggestion would be the same as saying delete Economy of North America and redirect it to World economy. --Pinkkeith 13:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point! I've changed my mind on this (see below). Garrett^Talk 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per User:CaptainVindaloo. --Pinkkeith 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to RuneScape with a {{seealso}} to virtual economy to identify the non-unique features of the economy. Garrett^Talk 20:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete - where this isn't elementary it's of no interest beyond players of the game. Belongs somewhere else. Pete Fenelon 01:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge - Much of the information is knowledge that even non-playing users would like to know about, so I do not feel that it should be deleted as funcruft. Mamyles^Talk 5:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to RuneScape and then redirect to RuneScape. Info is fair enough, but probably doesn't merit an article of its own. --Czj 01:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete too much fancruft to be useful

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.