Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods (fifth)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 KEEP. Reasons:

  1. I'm not too keen on renominating an article that was closed as Keep only a few months ago. What has changed since then?
  2. The argument that this stands alone as a subject I find unconvincing. I understand the argument along this line, and it does have merit. However, I think the counter-argument that this is basically an overflow from RuneScape to keep that article from being too long, and that we have many articles like that, to also have merit.
  3. The raw vote total is 12-10 in favor of Keep, for whatever that's worth.
  4. WP:CRUFT is just an essay, and WP:NOT#IINFO apply as this article is not a game guide.
  5. The quality of the article is not very germane, although it does have some bearing; but generally, an article is deleted only if the topic is unencyclopedic. It's asserted here that a decent article can't be made on this topic, but that is unproven. There are (apparently) several people willing to work on it.

It's not that the Keep arguments are all that strong; it's more that the Delete commentors failed to prove their case. This is the fifth nomination. Not counting the withdrawn nomination, this makes the last two closed as Keep, so I think it's time to stop renominating this article until 2008 at the earliest. The comments that the article should be renamed are well taken, and although I'm not going to do that now as part of the close, I don't see why another editor shouldn't move the article. Herostratus 07:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape gods

RuneScape gods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • WP:CRUFT RuneScape gods is an excellent example of fancruft on Wikipedia. There is an endless amount of unimportant information in this article that has absolutely no meaning to anyone outside of an enthusiastic RuneScape fan. RuneScape gods is NOT encyclopaedic.
Does anyone actually believe that a non-RuneScape player will care that the god Jahalsel has a symbol of "a horizontal line coming from a vertical line. -|"?
OR how by "Using the Staff of Armadyl, which he obtained through a series of circumstances mentioned in more detail during the miniquest, Zamorak was able to stab Zaros in the back…"
OR how about that "In the mage arena one can learn the spell "Flames of Zamorak" which sets fire to the target."
  • WP:OR and WP:V "They have little or no active followers, no letters, but maybe some holy objects dedicated to them. The creators of RuneScape have on occasion hinted at there being 20 or more gods, demigods and immortals, but rarely are they forthcoming with information."
Talk about notability! Talk about some valid research! Just look at the bottom of the article! Pages and pages of references the back up all of the information on the article! I don’t see an original research here…
To those who didn’t understand, that was sarcasm. This article is horribly packed with unverifiable information of original research. There are not nearly enough reliable sources cited or any sources cited for anything for that matter. Can someone prove to me that "Thammaron leaves a skeletal corpse, while any other demon killed in the game only leaves ashes"?
  • WP:NOT#IINFO Wikipedia is not a game guide. However, this article is very useful if one wants to know that "Armadyl's Staff is kept in the Temple of Ikov after its uses in banishing one god while creating another".
  • This article is poorly written and does not appear to have any hope for improvement. For example, the article has been tagged since June of 2006 for a lack of citing references or sources. I vote Delete. Audacious One 22:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Was there even a fourth nomination? The third was just two months ago, this is too early for another. The article needs a rewrite to remove some cruft + WP:OR, but other than that it's fine. Also, try to be a bit more careful on your next AfD, there's red links everywhere, I think we skipped the 4th nom, and I had to look in your contribs to find this page. Agentscott00(talk) 22:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I apologize about the problems there were with this page but I believe I've fixed them all now. According to the discussion page, this article was nominated for deletion four times. However, the fourth nomination was withdrawn - but still a nomination nonetheless. That makes the last completed one four months ago in September. I then do not think it is too early for another discussion. Audacious One 22:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Clean it up then. I'd really love to see this gone, but I can't think of a single reason why it should be deleted, and apparently you can't either. -Amarkov blahedits 22:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I gave several reasons why it should be deleted. My main point is that it is impossible to have this article because of the above problems. If I were to clean it up as you say, there would be nothing left. Audacious One 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm finding it hard to differentiate between your reasons for deletion, and your apparent need to be sarcastic. We can definitely clean it up and still have an article left, it's not "impossible". Agentscott00(talk) 23:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, rename and rewrite per QuagmireDog - fancruft isn't a criteria for deletion. If you see it, take it out. I've been considering removing some of the very sentences you've cited for a while now. The article is the current collaboration at WP:RUNESCAPE, with citing sources the main objective. The sources exist - i've seen them - the article simply hasn't had as much attention paid to it as, for example, the notorious RuneScape armour and RuneScape weaponry articles, so has never been through one of the massive decrufting operations of mid/late 2006. As for the gameguide concerns, this is as much use as a RuneScape gameguide as a recipe for Rogan Josh. It rarely even names the quests involved, never mind tells you how to pass them. I'm not even sure simply naming a quest counts as cruft. On the other hand, it is a combined characters and backstory article, both of which, as per the previous debates and the equivalent articles in every other fictional franchise series on Wikipedia, are encyclopedic. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Changed to strong keep/rename/rewrite - QuagmireDog's proposal sounds like a plan to me. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename RuneScape history on closure of AFD Immediately after. This article's problem is that it is focussed on the wrong topic, not that attention hasn't or couldn't be given to it. RS gods are not like the D&D gods, or other well-detailed fictional pantheons, assertions to that affect are mistaken. Instead, RS has three main gods, representing good, evil and neutrality/nature - these gods are covered in detail in masses of citable material from the RS site. A couple of other gods get a mention. The rest are bit-players, their stories are worked through and forgotten, the developer does not write them into new quests or material.

The flip side would be a history of RS - there's a page on it already available to gather info from. Writing the history of the game world instead of fixating on gods would have many advantages:

  • It would contain relevant info on the gods, much more so than the current article but also in better context than even a mass-cleanup'd gods article.
  • Readers get the bigger picture, they understand why the three main gods are given so much coverage, they'd understand where the lesser gods fit in - even RS players would find out new information.
  • Any character in the RS universe who is covered in detail and an important part of the history could be included, a much broader scope.
  • We'd (jubilantly) get away from the flawed argument "If the character is referred to as a god, they're important by default", this is plain wrong and in many cases obvious.
  • God letters and Postbag from the Hedge - here are the citations. If it's on there, it's citable, it's tangible, no we didn't just make up "The mighty black shiny thong of Thurr-Grar", click the link sweetie.
  • Every time articles are merged so they have broader scope, they improve, profoundly. The information becomes more streamlined and by definition free of fancruft, inappropriate context and uncited text - these stick out a mile and are therefore sanitized on sight. A history article does the same, it isn't about one particular caste of NPCs, it's about all of them that had an impact, it isn't even just about NPCs anymore - battles, locations, relics, aspects of the playable RS etc. ad nauseum.
  • The article would be lead from citations, rather than a splurge of muddled fancruft with none.

Keeping this article as is, with the same title, will not result in a stable, meaninful article. The focus of the article is wrong and the need (as well as the objective) of what is just a list of NPCs has not been demonstrated. Characters that don't belong aren't left in the article for weeks on end because deleting them is difficult, they're left because they'll only be added again because the entire article is geared to self-defeat and conflicts with all the progress the RS series has made. Twenty contributors aren't going to change that, they'll spend their time arguing back and forth and leaving a different mess to the one they found.

Articles like RuneScape weaponry, RuneScape armour and RuneScape minigames were not a success. They were filled with fancruft, unmanageable, meaningless to non-players and worst of all they missed the point - to provide relevant, readable material. RuneScape combat (the resultant merge) has been quite the opposite. Minigames was an article I was working on myself, though after seeing it gone all I see are steadily improving articles where it used to be.

The experiment has been run enough times for us to learn from it - can we please accept that and get on with the task at hand? Or do we have to set up the bubbling flasks again and meet back here when the weather's warmer?

I should point out that the idea of a history article was none of mine, Captain Vindaloo mentioned it. If he had not done so I would be asking for this article to be deleted. However, the idea of creating a history article to turn the article upside down into a great opportunity for us and something good for our readers. QuagmireDog 01:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. I would consider the deities in a major MMORPG to be a worthy subject. We do not have inidividual articles on each deity, but a list of reasonable length to cover the subject is what is encouraged by WP:FICT. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep "Armadyl's Staff is kept in the Temple of Ikov after its uses in banishing one god while creating another". Game guides are not for the Wiki, but it's a good thing this isn't a game guide. Saying what an object was used for IN THE PLOT is not a how-to. -Ryanbomber 12:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons given above -- Simon Cursitor 15:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. While WP:CRUFT etcetera may not be bad enough for deletion, WP:N certainly is. The question here is, has the Gods of the RuneScape universe been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, third-party, published works? I think not. Make it go away please. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What? That doesn't make sense. RuneScape passes notability requirements easily. The Gods are part of RuneScape, therefore notable. This is separate just to keep the article size down. WP:N applies to entire subjects, not components of subjects. A subject is either notable or non-notable. You can't have partly notable subjects. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare, for starters. The game's system requirements are not notable, but what would be the point of excluding them? CaptainVindaloo t c e 20:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, THAT does not make sense, seriously. Let's dissect the opening paragraph of WP:N:
        • A topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other. All topics must meet a minimum threshold of notability in order for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. This requirement ensures that there exists enough source material to write a verifiable, encyclopedic article about the topic. (my boldings)
      • Now. We can all agree that RuneScape is notable. That has not been contested, an behold, there's an article on RuneScape. However, RuneScape gods is not a subpage of RuneScape or a section in RuneScape - it is an article. An article in an encyclopedia, dealing with the topic of the article as mentioned in the header of the article and the html page title - namely, RuneScape gods. As thus, while the gods are part of RuneScape, RuneScape gods are not part of RuneScape it is an independent topic and is so required to assert, and reference, notability per WP:N's primary notability criterion. Do you see what I mean? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Not really. "RuneScape gods is not a subpage of RuneScape or a section in RuneScape" - erm, yes it is, hence the "RuneScape" part of the title. And the only reason it is not a section in the main article is to keep the article size down, otherwise we'd have a browser-crashing monster on our hands. RuneScape/Gods wouldn't work, as the page/subpage feature doesn't work in article namespace (this is to allow articles like Face/Off to exist without technical difficulty). The topic here is RuneScape. This article contains an important component of that topic. Topics and Articles are not the same. A Topic must be sufficiently notable to deserve inclusion here. Articles are simply containers for these topics. If a topic has to be split across several articles to be included, edited and read conveniently, then so be it. Articles and topics are not synonymous. Most non-notable topics can only manage one article, and some notable topics can fit conveniently in one article, but in this case, the notable topic (RuneScape) is too large to fit in a single article, so it has been split across several articles, per WP:SIZE. WP:N is not meant for this situation. Rules like WP:NOT and essays like WP:CRUFT are; these are meant to keep the coverage of a topic in check. Think like a reader: you hear of something famous, and you go to Wikipedia to find out more about it. As it has a claim to fame, notability, then the reader will very likely know what makes it famous. Wikipedia would be utterly worthless to the reader if it simply repeated what makes the topic notable and nothing else. You already know that David Beckham is a footballer. What use is an Wikipedia entry that just says "David Beckham is a footballer"? What if you want to know where he grew up? What he did before he became a footballer? His footballing career before becoming notable playing with Manchester United? Follow the spirit of the rules, not the letter. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe this constitutes an irreconcilable difference in our views on Wikipedia. However, are you actually suggesting that RuneScape gods are famous? I could find more third-party sources dealing with Jobjörn Folkesson, I can assure you that. Thinking like a "reader" in the manner you suggested would make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information - if said reader doesn't find any entry on RuneScape gods (you must agree it sounds completely ridiculous) on Wikipedia, there's always the rest of the internet. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 22:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
No, thinking like the reader in my example would make Wikipedia an encyclopedia. The RuneScape gods are notable as a part of RuneScape, just as David Beckham is notable as a football player. Without RS, the gods wouldn't be notable, without football, Beckham wouldn't be notable, without Formula 1, Michael Schumacher wouldn't be notable, without the space program, Neil Armstrong wouldn't be notable, et cetera ad nauseum. Everything is connected like this. Readers interested in the major characters and backstory of RuneScape (the article has been somewhat mistitled; the Gods are the most frequent recurring characters and major players in the game backstory; see QuagmireDog's rename !vote) won't find this indiscriminate at all: its not a mere FAQ, Travel Guide, Memorial, Instruction Manual (at least while regular editors keep an eye on it), Internet Guide, Textbook, raw Plot Summary, Lyrics, or something stupid made up in school. It is a focused overview of the backstory of a notable MMORPG. Any ambiguity of the title is the reason we have links and a template. And the rest of the internet sucks :-) . CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
While I disagree strongly, it is to me apparent that the dominant view (NOT consensus) of Wikipedia editors on fictional game content is that it doesn't have to meet the primary notability criterion. As thus, I will leave the matter - no point in arguing when I don't have a snowball's chance in hell to succeed. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The nomination reasons are invalid. Cruft is not a reason for deletion, it's a derogatory term that should not be used in an AfD. As to the rest, If there is any content that is a game guide, or original research, edit it, clean up this article. But I'd no more expect this article's contents to be deleted than I would the contents of Category:Dungeons % Dragons deities. While some of them are based on real-world deities, others are completely made up. I doubt much has been written about some of them outside the D&D universe, yet they are related to something real and notable. Thus they should be included in Wikipedia. The same applies to this. Runescape is notable. It is set in a particular world. That world is notable, and verifiable as a fictional creation. These gods are an aspect of that creation, and as such should be discussed somewhere. I could live with a merge if that were proposed, I don't think the World of Runescape is given enough attention, but that's a problem for another day. FrozenPurpleCube 02:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do not wish to make a vote, merely an observation that Wikipedia habitually will turn a blind eye in favor of Pokemon, The Simpsons, Family Guy, Harry Potter, Halo, LOTR, Star Wars, Star Trek, or any other video game-related sub-cruft type articles. The general standard is that all articles must be built using reliable third party sources. Why does this standard need not apply to the aforementioned subjects? Just wondering. Silensor 23:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see a reason why it should be removed. BishopTutu 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or Merge with the character list. This has a mediocre style of writing and some info seems Wikia-esque. I changed my vote after a review over the article. BishopTutu 03:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no character list, as of yet, since the gods are in the most part the only characters which could reasonably assumed to be worth covering here - emphasis on in the most part. The current article is biased against non-gods yet also asserts that RS gods by their very nature are notable, which is extremely debatable (and in my humble opinion a load of pants). Worse still, it's being used as an excuse to include non-gods which are also not-notable - a weak argument which none the less has not been countered.
With the exception of the RS Locations article, which is being rewritten in a more encyclopedic fashion, Gods is the last remaining article from the original mass-split of the main article. This resulted in loads of crufty RS articles which have now been merged or deleted. Of the remaining sub-articles, combat is a mass-merge, skills is a mass-merge and wilderness is in the process of being merged. That's why gods does not hold-up in comparison.
Whilst there is nothing to 'merge' the article with, renaming the article RS history and rebuilding it will have the same effect - notable characters included, non-notable characters excluded, the actions of the gods are spelled out (which negates all the 'you can get Guthix armour' justification language in the current article), fictional battles which happened 'before' the age of RS which players access when they play the game can be included. I'm quite sympathetic with anyone who wishes for the article to be deleted, it is a mess, the article was not cleaned-up despite that recommendation at the close of the last AFD. All that said, take a look at the new locations article and the current main article, as well as combat and skills. This is what contributors can do with RS info, something much better than the gods and current location articles would lead you to believe.
If we could come to some consensus, in this AFD, that it would be a good idea to change the direction of the article and start insisting on sources being supplied, we could do some good work here. I'm worried that deletion will result in the info being splattered amongst other articles but a blanket 'keep' would just result in the article remaining meaningless to non-players, just a bit cleaned-up. We did the 'clean-up this mess' thing before, having an article simply called 'Gods' with no focus or balance is a mistake. QuagmireDog 05:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename and Rewrite per Quagmire above. The RuneScape article series is rather small by Wikipedia standards, and the number of active Wikipedians working on it is limited. However, the contributors appear to be aware of its failings and want to improve the article— I therefore encourage the nominator to have more patience and wikifaith. There are other, larger article series out there where cleanup is a much more of endemic problem; articles are always looking for more contributors. —DavidHOzAu 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment about article-series notability I also do not think notability applies to sub-articles of an article series, provided the parent article is notable; if notability needed to be asserted every single time, nobody would ever split any article because it (the possibility of outsiders thinking the sub-article is not notable) would make many attempts of providing Wikipedia with a document hierarchy in vain. For example, consider List of highways in Queensland and ask yourself the question "should we expect a sub-article to need assert notability by citing external sources?" Of course not! The grandfather article is notable, so therefore the parent article and the sub-article is notable too. Now apply that same logic to this case and connect the dots. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?  ;-) —DavidHOzAu 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Quite ironically, you picked a comparison that is actually controversial. -Amarkov blahedits 04:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I'll accept that. ^_^ However in my experience conflicts like this only seems controversial because it is easy to think that guidelines are set in stone; I know I did when I joined. However, as you know, guidelines are not so prescriptive as some would imagine. They are only meant to guide us, not to legislate... in other words, guidelines have obvious exceptions while policies should be followed religiously. This is the core idea behind ignore all rules, namely, that we can ignore guidelines if it will improve Wikipedia. In this case and the case I mentioned, keeping it improves Wikipedia as a reference source (to preferably other references) and as both a micropedia (summary style) and a macropedia (detail articles) if we choose to ignore notability concerns when the parent articles are notable. I agree with Quagmire that the article has glaring problems, but I believe that they can be fixed given time and a small rewrite. —DavidHOzAu 06:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would be entirely happy to keep this article, even though it looks like fancruft to me, if we could only deal with the fact that (a) there appears, even to my beginner's eye, to be a lot of OR here, and (b) no adequate case is being made for notability of the subject. Since it's not meeting our normal criteria, it should go. We shouldn't have one rule for some articles and another rule for RuneScape, however many fanboys are contributing to this AfD debate. WMMartin 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment It looks like the article is going to be remodeled soon anyways, so your citation concerns will be addressed. However, we generally do not make sure that every new section of an article is notable in-and-of-itself in case it may later need splitting, just in relation to the topic being discussed in the [original] article; after a section is split off, sub-article notability depends on the parent article's notability and the size of the split. The core concept of WP:SS is that sizable sub-articles remain part of the parent article, just on a separate page for (a) size concerns; (b) focused editing; and, (c) reduction of page history clutter in the parent article. Normal notability concerns do not apply here because this isn't a normal case. (For the record, I have never played RuneScape, nor do I plan to, nor have I edited any RuneScape-related articles.) —DavidHOzAu 07:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The series are notable, and it is not a game guide. Fancruft is not part of the deletion criteria. Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay, not an official policy, and it's something to be avoided in deletion debates. Dtm142 19:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • So is something else. WP:FICT does say that list of minor characters are good bla bla bla, but these are hardly even minor characters. They're less than that. So, we don't have lists of RuneScape NPCs... we shouldn't have a list os RS gods. Perhaps a section on the "background story" of RuneScape could be included in RuneScape, though? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If an article is a "subarticle" according to summary style, does the subarticle need to meet notability in its own right? Even if it is assumed that summary style is an exception to notability, I think every article must still meet the verifiability aspect of notability. It must have some references from third-party reliable sources. Above it was stated that Michael Schumacher wouldn't be known without Formula 1. That's true, but Schumacher is not a notable topic simply because Formula 1 is a notable sport. (If that were true, then WP should have an article on every person remotely connected with Formula 1.) It ought to be common sense that random pit crew are not notable simply because Formula 1 is notable, unless they are discussed by reliable third-party sources. Likewise, RuneScape gods are not notable simply because RuneScape is notable. There should be some discussion of these entities in non-blog, non-forum, non-RuneScape sources. Are they mentioned in independent game reviews? I tried looking for a third party reference even for Guthix and was not successful, and I don't see where any of the "keep" !votes have provided third-party references either. If this topic is only referenced by RuneScape sources, how would an outside reader distinguish it from trivia? Gimmetrow 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: AMEN BROTHER! :D Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've read quite a few RuneScape reviews now, and so far none of them have mentioned the gods of the RuneScape universe. I can't even find a mention in the extensive walkthrough/FAQ at ign.com. I see the September '06 AfD encouraged a rewrite. The November '06 AfD was withdrawn because it was only two months later. It is now another two months later, and the article still hasn't improved much. The RuneScape gods do provide a sort of mythical background to the game. I'm tempted to say this topic should be summarized and merged into the main RuneScape article, with a result similar to the "Premise" section in Unreal. But with a rewrite promised above, I won't.Gimmetrow 17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • On a tangential note, why does the bottom navigation template contain a link to a wikiproject task force? That seems inappropriate in article space. Also, why link to Portal:RuneScape when the regular portal template is also used, and easily recognized? Gimmetrow 17:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The outside reader would distinguish it from trivia in that it leans heavily towards inclusion in the parent article. As you and I have stated, if the article's contents were still in a section of the parent article, there would not be an immediate problem. Interestingly, most of the delete votes here are clearly because it is a sub-article, not because it isn't verifiable. Perhaps we should nominate WP:SS at MfD or tag it obsolete? --DavidHOzAu 11:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
      • WP:N refers to WP:SS in the section on merging, where it refers to "Information which ... is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject." WP:SS is not a license to split out any part of a large article, but only those parts that can stand alone as a full, sourced encyclopedia article satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. Within an article on RuneScape, if the RuneScape gods are important to a full explanation of RuneScape as a topic, then it is fine to describe the RuneScape gods with reference to RuneScape-published sources. However, I don't think this is enough for a stand-alone article on RuneScape gods. I think we should be hesitant to endorse stand-alone articles that cannot be referenced to any third-party sources. I'm still concerned that none of the !keeps have even attempted to provide a third-party reference. Gimmetrow 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep — I'd like to see some referenes added (not sure how long this article's been marked as needing them), but I'm uncomfortable voting delete seeing as how it's the fifth nomination and third in 6 months, so I'd rather see this article rewritten. Wizardman 19:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gimmetrow above. Notability, it has long been said in the context of biographical pieces, is not contagious. Therefore, the argument that Runescape is notable, therefore any given article which can be connect to Runescape is notable, is a weak one. Indeed, Runescape-related articles have been deleted before now. As noted, the article has not been fixed, remaining riddled with WP:OR and liberally sprinkled with {{fact}} tags, in spite of multiple AfDs. AfD may not be cleanup, but articles which remain persistently unreferenced are clearly problematic. Notable subjects are easily referenced because other commentators (WP:RS) have done all the hard work of collecting the data. Primary sources - the game and its supporting materials - should only serve for adding vivid (and misleading?) detail. Since any compliant article would necessarily be rewritten from scratch, deletion serves to purge Wikipedia of non-compliant (with WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:FICT, WP:V, WP:RS) material. There's no downside to deletion: either we lose an unacceptable article, and it is replaced by a rewritten one which is acceptable, or it isn't replaced. Either way we come out ahead. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean up and keep It is not a game guide and its part of a notable series. This is part of an ongoing improvement drive - • The Giant Puffin • 12:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete The main purpose of having subpages is to reduce the size of the main article. Therefore, there should only be subpages on the most important aspects of RuneScape's gameplay, such as skills and combat, which non-players researching on the game may find useful. However, the gods are not even mentioned in the Gameplay section of the main article. If a reliable source wrote a review or article on RuneScape, several paragraphs may be devoted to explaining skills or combat, but the gods are unlikely to get even a passing mention. This suggests that the gods are not a notable element of RuneScape's gameplay, and information about them is unlikely to interest non-players (or even casual players).
I performed the Google test on the names of each of the three main gods. I'm not sure whether 50 kilogoogles is sufficient to assert notability, so I'll let others judge.
51.7 kilogoogles for "Zamorak".
59.7 kilogoogles for "Guthix".
40.6 kilogoogles for "Saradomin".
COI DISCLAIMER: I play RuneScape. My main account, Hildanknight, is level 57 with a total level of 540. Unlike some moron named Velocity who joined my friend's Google group about RuneScape, I do not worship any of the RuneScape gods. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Chrisch 13:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But the nom isn't a very good reason really:
  • WP:CRUFT - not a reason for deletion (it's an essay, not policy).
  • WP:OR/WP:V - not very good in this case where sources exist (Questions/Postbag/Kbase - official sources).
  • WP:NOT#IINFO (gameguide) - not a reason, as the article isn't a game guide.
WP:N shouldn't be a concern - according to WP:FICT, fictional character lists should be included in the main article, unless the main article becomes too long, in which case it is better to have a separate article instead. Article length is one of the main reasons RuneScape failed it's GA nomination. Guess what got split to keep the length down? :-) I strongly urge everyone to take a look at QuagmireDog's !vote. Let's rename, keep Guth/Sara/Zammy and replace the minor gods with a summary of the backstory. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Richard 17:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep Ok, it looks bad with all the {{fact}} tags all over everything, but thats just a bunch of spam. Most of those tags are things that have citations in RuneScape, and or things that would use the same citation are tagged 3,4,5 times. I'll concede that it needs a moderate overhaul, but the cruft isn't as bad as it looks, if you want cruft look Here. Other than those reasons for deleters i bashed, I agree with User:CaptainVindaloo and totally think it should stay. → p00rleno (lvl 80) ←ROCKSCRS 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep- The nomination uses WP:CRUFT to support the deletion of the article, which is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. I suggest that a new AfD entirely supported by policy be submitted in a few months again.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Three other guidelines were called, not to mention the extensive discussion above. Come on. That's filibustering o_O Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 18:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
However, a non-policy/non-guideline present on the nomination can sway consensus on this discussion. What would the consensus have been if WP:CRUFT wasn't used as a factor? We will never know, until a sixth AfD is submitted in a few months.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 18:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It had been brought up in the discussion if nothing else. And the discussion above doesn't contain much talking about cruft - most delete !votes seem to think about other things. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Look at a few comments above these comments: "Delete per nom" and "Delete as per nom". Well, it's nice that they agree with the nomination, but its not too good to know that they endorse the use of an essay to justify a deletion.--Ed ¿Cómo estás?Reviews? 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Those are two out of... how many? Many. Also, they were posted late in the discussion, so they may also be influenced by the cruft-free discussion above them. Furthermore, I am confident the closing admin will ignore votes like those and instead look for the consensus as established through our dialectic. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 19:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I see little useful purpose, it appears to not have enough useful material if the fancruft was removed.Exarion 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Above I argued that WP:SS is not a license to split out any parts of a large article, but only those parts which can stand alone satisfying WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. WP:N#Merging refers to "information which ... is not sufficient to build a full, sourced encyclopedia article that stands independent of the main subject". This seems fairly appropriate here. Within an article on RuneScape, if the RuneScape gods are important to a full explanation of RuneScape as a topic (whose notabilty is already independently established), then it is fine to describe the RuneScape gods with reference to RuneScape-published sources. However, I don't think this is enough for a stand-alone article on RuneScape gods. I think we should be hesitant to endorse stand-alone articles that cannot be referenced to any third-party sources. Gimmetrow 19:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Some of the things pertain only to RuneScape based information, and no one outside of the RuneScape realm could find any of this information extensively useful. Who else in Wikipedia would find an article about gods from a game they've probably never heard of for anything constructive? Makoto 21:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Who would find information on combat in World of Warcraft useful but people who play the game? I also am not sure a large number of people are going to not have heard of Runescape, it's hardly a tiny game. -Amarkov blahedits 03:33, 16 January 2007 (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.