Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape gods (second nomination)

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 with cleanup reccommended. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape gods

A page about RuneScape's gods? Pluh-ease! All this gets is stupid anons putting in their stupid stuff. I see not how this serves any purpose other than a vandal pool. Not necessarily a game guide, just useless info. Why would anyone care about RS' gods? Delete.--Richard 19:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Useless rune-cruft. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 19:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fairly extreme fancruft. My Alt Account 19:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, these characters seem really non-notable in the big scheme of things. Andrew Levine 20:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nomination is useless and doesn't give any valid reasons for deleting this article, but on the other hand I doubt anyone here really needs a list of them ;).*Keep per below comments. After a few days of thinking about this, I have reconsidered. Needs cleanup, but the backstory of a popular MMORPG is a notable subject. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 20:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 01:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - true, it could do with a cleanup, but this article provides an insight into the rich background story of the game, something which every other fictional franchise on Wikipedia is entitled to. The background story of RuneScape is often manipulated by its gods, hence the title. Maybe rename it to 'History of RuneScape', or similar? Furthermore, if being a target for vandals and crufters is a criterion for deletion, you'd better put the main article up for deletion right now. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Poor nom, articles about rpg and fantasy gods exist (like tiamat from d&d)-User:Merlin Storm
  • Keep, seems like Runescape players would be interested in Runescape gods, and also those wishing to compare them with other ficitional deities such as the D&D ones mentioned above. Kappa 09:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - per the 3 above, The gods are significant background characters within a fantasy genre, so what if it's a game rather than a book? Ace of Risk 11:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - First the statement, All this gets is stupid anons putting in their stupid stuff, is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and could be construed as a violation of WP:CIV. Please, do not bite the newbies. Second, the statement, Not necessarily a game guide, is nonsensical. A "game guide" would be a violation of WP:NOT. Now, I would potentially agree that RuneScape gods could be merged into a larger article on the basis that RuneScape is a relatively minor game, and any attempt to treat its gods authoritatively would potentially result in simple duplication of what minimal documentation exists. However, I'll leave that to others to determine, and above suggestions indicate that I'm not the first to have thought this way (per CaptainVindaloo). -Harmil 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • comment - and while we're thinking about the relative mertis of "fancruft" leave us recall that Bulbasaur was a front-page featured article. -Harmil 13:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • keep please per kappa and capatain vindallo with possible renaming Yuckfoo 20:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If one wanted to learn about RS Gods, they could look around in theh RuneScape Knowledge Base, not the wiki. Makoto 00:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This article is as close as RS will ever get to a 'plot', has not had a great deal of attention regarding NN and cruft because contributors have been busy repairing the other daughter articles. Removing this article from the WP right now before it has received enough attention results in a loss of info and nothing else. In the fullness of time this article could perhaps be merged into the main article or be made stronger and resist crufty additions, but to throw it away now is to punish contributors for not having eight pairs of hands. QuagmireDog 02:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    This brings up a really good point, which is that RS has no plot. Which is why any article based solely on RS plot elements is inevitably going to be a bunch of really fancrufty inane minor details. ;-) My Alt Account 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
RS doesn't have a plot in the typical sense, but the gods are often the only link between quests and various aspects of the game. Yes, it's fancrufty, of course it's fancrufty - attention has been elsewhere. In the past month the focus of the RS series has been wrenched back on course by a combined effort, many articles have been removed or merged. As part of that process, the mini-games article has had a drastic revamp, some of the remaining articles are still in the process of being merged and rewritten. Once combat, weapons/armour and mini-games are taken care of, the RS gods article would be a good follow-up. To remove it now before that process has even begun is to ignore completely what has been achieved recently and what will continue to be achieved. The statement of intent is there, if flinging another article on the fire is more important than adding a clean-up notice and allowing contributors a chance, then there's nothing pleasant that can be said. QuagmireDog 03:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep: we need this—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.11.191.254 (talk • contribs) .

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.