Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape misc

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 all. It might be better to list separately, as Amarkov mentions, to be able to concentrate more on each particular article instead of a bunch all at once. Majorly (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape gods, RuneScape combat, RuneScape skills, Gielinor

RuneScape gods (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

RuneScape combat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

RuneScape skills (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Gielinor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are fan/gamecruft and violate the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines in that they are inappropriately detailed game guide content. Plus, they have severe problems with citing sources and being verifiable. Much of this comes from playing the game and would be impossible to reference properly. What little is referenced for the most part comes from a single, unreliable source. These articles are unsalvageable, and should be deleted. Andre (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep all - no solid reasons given for deletion. These are quite clearly not gameguides - the regular editors make sure of this. Percieved cruft is not a reason for deletion - WP:CRUFT is an essay, not policy. I see no violations of WP:CVG/GL here. Articles on fictional characters are encyclopedic. Articles on fictional locations are encyclopedic (I'll cite Middle Earth, a former front page featured article on that). Skills and combat are the result of gameplay section splits over WP:SIZE concerns, so form part of the main article. The merge idea for these two can be dusted off, if necessary. WP:RS concerns are a reason for cleanup, not deletion, but I don't see a problem here anyway: official documentation, with the exception of critical reception of a game, is a perfectly reliable source. Finally, note how the closing admin of Gods 5 recommended no more AfDs for some time. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

We need multiple, reliable sources independent of the article subjects themselves. Official documentation alone is not sufficient for a well-referenced encyclopedia article. Andre (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The violations of the VG guidelines occur in skills and combat, which are inappropriately detailed game guide content. And as for timing, it seems that the AFD you refer to was in January. Andre (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You mean per WP:N? Well, if RuneScape, the main article, were lacking independent sources, I would have db-a7'd it myself. Thankfully, the RuneScape topic has plenty of independent reliable sources. These subpages exist only because of WP:SIZE - otherwise they would be included in the main article and one would have time to get a cup of coffee and a sandwich while waiting for the page to load. The requirement for multiple, independent reliable sources applies to whole topics, not individual articles, otherwise everything on Wikipedia would be confined to single, mammoth articles. (Edit conflict) How does any material in combat or skills help one play the game? They seem pretty useless as walkthroughs to me, although fairly good at explaining the gameplay to a non-player. True, we do have a problem with new, inexperienced users adding borderline material, but this is normally sorted out pretty quickly. I'll mention the diluting merge idea again now (Deckiller's originally, I wouldn't want to take the credit). In closing Gods 5, Herostratus recommended no more "until 2008 at the earliest". And as an aside, I'm just going to remove the Pures, Hybrids and Tanks section from combat now, as I have never been happy with this recent introduction, and I've been considering it all day. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 23:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not the case. The requirement for references and reliable sources applies to each datum of information. I recommend you read over WP:V. And as for Herostratus' recommendation, it was just that: a recommendation, not a decree or a requirement. Andre (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Your recent removal was helpful but the issues with these articles still stand. Here are some more instances of game guide content/content that violates the VG guidelines which are particularly obvious in the combat article: This skill was important in RuneScape Classic because you could only retreat after the 3rd round of combat. Advanced bows, such as Magic Shortbow, Magic Longbow, Dark Bow, Crystal bow, and Seercull Bow, also have "Special Attacks". Monsters are often easier to kill then their level suggests. Andre (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything is exempt from WP:V (which has nothing forbidding the use of official documentation as sources, I might add), I'm saying that subpages of notable topics do not need to prove notability all by themselves. And after four keeps and one withdrawn because of recent keeps, it's time to stop AfDing Gods. (Edit conflict) Thanks for pointing those out, looks like they slipped through the net. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about notability, I'm talking about references and sources -- Wikipedia:Attribution. All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.. The official documentation is unacceptable to be the only source to support the articles as per the Attribution page, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, etc. The official site is promotional in nature and is insufficient as a reference.

Here are some more examples of game guide content, this time in the Gielinor article: It is best known for the massive dungeon beneath the island, populated by Dagannoths and the Daggannoth Kings, three extremely powerful monsters who drop unique rewards for use in combat and skill training. The island can only be accessed by paying a ghostly sailor in Port Phasmatys a small quantity of ectotokens, a kind of currency used only by the ghosts of that city. Players can assist them by defending a Void Knight in the Pest Control minigame and earn rewards such as Void Knight robes or bonus combat experience. These articles are full of this stuff. Andre (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Most material here is cited (WP:ATT) to a reliable source (WP:RS; are you suggesting that the official documentation is unreliable?!). Any (minority) original research can simply be removed without nuking the entire article. These are reasons for cleanup, not deletion. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The official documentation is reliable technically, but not sufficient as the only reference on an article. Since it is impossible to cite these articles to anything else, they need to be deleted. Andre (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it impossible? Try fansites. Game reviewers usually comment on gameplay mechanics too. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Andre (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Articles such as Runescape combat and Runescape skills are valid subarticles describing Runescape gameplay. It might be a kiddy browser based piece of shit, but it's got quite a large player base, and I'd also vote keep on articles such as Gameplay of Final Fantasy XI. Although I'm not to sure about the level of detail we go into on MMO characters, such as Category:Warcraft. - hahnchen 09:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep all – RuneScape is a very broad topic that cannot be covered by one article. Multiple articles are necessary for proper encyclopedia coverage of the game. Also, I'd like to point out that fancruft is cause for cleanup of the article or merging with another similar article on the same topic, not deletion. As for reliability and verifiability issues, almost all aspects of the game can be cited from either the game manual or one of the three main fansites that we link to, and although many things are not yet sourced, that can be fixed fairly easily and is therefore not cause for deletion. And the "single, unreliable source," the game's official manual? How is the official manual written by the creators of the game unreliable? I admit we need more varied sources, but the official manual is not unreliable in the least; and again, this is reason for cleanup rather than deletion. We need to be working to improve these articles, not remove them.
  I think I'm supposed to note any major involvement I have with these articles, so note that I am the primary author and editor of most of the Gielinor article, and I frequently edit the other 3. Pyrospirit Shiny! 18:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Gielinor - neutral - All appears to be based off the RuneScape KB. Even so, is this really adding

something to Wikipedia? If you're doing research on this topic, there's the Jagex KB. We could add something to

RuneScape saying how it has varied lands? I understand this might be a good topic and informational, but

I dunno...

RuneScape skills - weak keep - Acceptable, could do with some sources.

RuneScape gods - delete - Not sure if all this is really needed. If there is something more about these

gods that is added to RuneScape, (and sourced,) this might be valid. As it is, Guthix/Saradomin/Zamorack

appear to be the 'main' gods of the game, so I'm not sure if all this about the demi-gods is needed.

RuneScape combat - delete and/or merge to skills - Few sources

OSborn^arf 20:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: You are never going to get rid of these articles using this approach. It has been tried a number of times in the past and will only polarize the community (anti-cruft editors vs. pro-Runescape fans). I would suggest you withdraw this RfD and spend your time on more worthwhile pursuits. Shoehorn 22:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with RuneScape and deleted per WP:FICT. Carlossuarez46 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't merge and delete, that would be a GFDL violation. Even if that happened, it would be split out again immediately per WP:SIZE. Where does WP:FICT forbid subpages? I see a bit encouraging subpages where necessary, but nothing forbidding them. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 01:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not like this. These must be treated as seperate pages to arrive at a meaningful result. Group nominations are very overused, and this is not an appropriate situation for one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amarkov (talk • contribs) 03:56, 4 July 2007.
  • I definitely agree with Amarkov. The subpages are different enough that this groups them together too much; however, I still believe they should all be kept. Pyrospirit Shiny! 19:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per CaptainVindaloo. Some of these are better than others (the combat article is a bit iffy, since it is the borderland between encyclopedic description and a computer game-guide walkthrough; on the other hand the Gods article is quite decent), but RuneScape is such a popular game that there is plenty to write about it, and spinning off some topics into separate articles is only natural. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep These are valid subarticles of RuneScape, which is easily notable. The requirement for multiple independent sources is only to establish notability. For citing information within articles, we only need a reliable source, which includes primary sources for certain kinds of information. Also, as usual, difficult to form consensus in a mass nomination... — brighterorange (talk)
• Keep. RuneScape is a broad topic, too big for one article. Just because they're unsourced doesn't mean they should be deleted. They explain the gameplay in a neutral format that could be useful to a non player of the game. Also, don't put the entire series up for deletion again. Nominate each of them separately if you want them to be deleted. Dtm142 19:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All I view none of these as a game guide, as these articles won't tell how to do something. RuneScape_skills as an example, it tell how do the skills mean to the game. How do they work etc. Many users would like to find about the style of the game near the main article, as the Runescape Knowledge Base is totally a gameguide, and won't tell a big overview about skills in overall, and hunting different pages for small exmplanations is just a waste of time for people just researching. To the tags marked onto the article, I'm sure that these could be easily solved, especially the verification one, because switching sources would almost still do the same purpose as a reference. (There are written references about Runescape in overall, not just in the main website.) ~Iceshark7 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - I would have probably said delete, but this is not the right way to do this. Please, feel free to open separate AfDs on the separate articles. In my opinion, a multi-article AfD should only be used when you can be certain that everyone will not have different opinions about the different articles.

My actual opinions though: WP:CRUFT may only be an essay, but it brings up very valid points. Also, if you think they should be kept per WP:SIZE of RuneScape, maybe that means that there should not that much information on the subject in the first place (WP:BHTT anyone?). Remember, I am still going neutral and these are my opinions on the RuneScape series in general so I may go either way on any specific article. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep per CaptainVindaloo. Cruft is an essay, this breaks no policies. G1ggy ^(t|c|p) 07:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep all Regular editors make sure that these articles are well maintained and free of fancruft - • The Giant Puffin • 15:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Compare these articles to, for example, Articles for deletion/Places in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Andre (talk) 02:44, 9 July 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.