Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape random events (third nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape random events

Nominated for deletion for a third time. This article seems much more like part of a game guide than an encyclopedia article. The notability of the article isnt asserted in any way. There are no third parties references. I'd propose it be deleted MidgleyDJ 07:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 09:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 10:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - we need only mention this in the main, combat and/or planned gameplay articles; how the events act as a Captcha along with a brief history of cheating in the game and how Jagex has fought it. A whole article seems a little unnecessary. Instead of deleting, it could be moved to a portal or wikiproject subpage, so something can be done with it, maybe information reused. The images would make a nice gallery, though. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 11:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain or merge into another RuneScape subpage, where it might be relevant if we trim down on the fancruft. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Ew. The only thing that is really needed is the basic "There are random events, blah blah blah". Everything else is cruft. -Amarkov ^babble 15:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. I'm thinking along the same lines as Cap'n Vindaloo. Some of the information is salvageable. Keep this at least until we decide what else to do with it. --Christofurio 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 19:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Random events are not significant enough to have their own article.--Richard 22:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, but Merge Some Info into Main Article This is basically fancruft, what we should do is merge all the important info into the main article. The RSJ 22:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete but the Introductory paragraphs could be used for the main RuneScape article--Ed ^Trick? or _Treat? 00:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. There's way too much cruft on here about Runescape as it stands. This isn't a games review site. All that's needed, in order to fulfill the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide a reader ignorant of the subject enough information to understand what the game is and a general context for how it works, no more. Even the main article could do with some severe pruning, and all the remaining adjuncts expunging. Cain Mosni 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. At the very least, there surely must be a better place to transwiki all of this Runescape stuff. In any case, WP:NOT a game guide, although I might be amenable if some of the more noteworthy content was placed in the main Runescape article. --Alan Au 09:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a blurb about random events happening to prevent botting and macroing is all that is needed. Axem Titanium 15:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Combination 00:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge because some of it can fit into other articles - • The Giant Puffin • 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - You have got to be kidding. Random events? This Runescape cruft/game guiding is getting ridiculous. Keeping this sets a bad precedent as well as all the obvious arguements against it. If this is kept, then there is no real arguement against creating articles about random events in other games. The Kinslayer 10:05, 7 November 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.