Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills

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 of the debate was no consensus for deletion - 21 votes to delete or transwiki, 14 votes to keep. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills for a summary of the votes counted towards this determination. Please work together in reducing and merging these articles to the extent that such is a practicable solution. BD2412 T 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RuneScape skills

The total list is:

RuneScape skills
RuneScape locations
RuneScape dungeons
RuneScape quests
RuneScape runes
RuneScape economy
RuneScape items
RuneScape gods
RuneScape random events
Castle Wars
Kalphite Queen
Dagannoth
TzHaar Fight Cave

Delete All as fancruft, these should be merged into the the RuneScape article then deleted Prodego ^talk 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I do not mean merge all the content into the main article, I mean, anything that is deserving of mention in the main article (i.e. RuneScape skills), should be mentioned. Most of these articles topics are adequately covered in the main article, and some should just be deleted as they are unimportant to the game(i.e. Castle Wars, Kalphite Queen, and Dagannoth) anything that should be covered can be summarized in the main article, we do not need a 600+ word article on the Kalphite Queen for example. Prodego ^talk 19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Most I play RuneScape and I think most of these artilce are not needed, but I beg of you, please keep the RuneScape god page, it is so helpful.
• If they are merged their edit history needs to be retained per GFDL. You cannot delete the history of content that is merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. Royboycrashfan 04:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft is not a reason to delete. Please explain what makes this supposedly unencyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOT an FAQ, game guide, or a free host. WP:IS an encyclopedia, and this information belongs on a game help site, not an encyclopedia. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbiter stuff Prodego ^talk 02:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete All per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete All. I play RuneScape and find that these articles are totally unencyclopedic. The information belongs on one of the many forums that fans can post to. JanesDaddy 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• If you do delete them all, the resulting page will be very messy. For that Reason, Keep J.J.Sagnella 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. RuneScape is a major game, and the articles are already adequately merged, we don't have individual articles on each dungeon. We have quite a lot of detail on a number of games, and I see no reason why RuneScape should be an exception. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as gamecruft. I don't play RuneScape but I take User:JanesDaddy's word. JIP | Talk 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia ISNOT GameFAQs. FCYTravis 09:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. For example, RuneScape locations is nothing different from locations in Lord of the Rings which are getting separate articles instead of being lumped together. Besides, it simply can't all be put into the RuneScape article. It would get too long. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strongest possible keep You just cant merge these into the RS article. It would make it far too long! All these articles are useful, and many have already been cleaned up to make them into great articles. RuneScape is a major game, and these articles provide a great deal of useful information. They are merged in to general articles, and the RS series has been greatly improved in the last few months, with economy being almost completely re-written to meet standards, quests actually re-written to turn it from a game guide into a useful and factual database of quests, and every other article has either been cleaned up or is in the process. A lot of work has gone into these and I see them all as good articles that should definately be kept - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep most, or transwiki before deleting - To merge would mean enormous pages (though some may be reasonable merges) - to delete would be an insult to all who provided content and edits - if they must be savagely curtailed, please aid in transwiki to RuneScape Wiki - some re-edit, movement of images etc would be required, though it would avoid the waste of deletion or massive cutbacks in a merge. Ace of Risk 17:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• • So what if they have 58 edits? People who have 58 edits dont have common sense or opinions? It doesnt take someone with thousands of edits to see that deleting these articles would create an extremely long RuneScape article - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "An insult?" Sorry, there's nothing personal implied here, but the content is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, per what Wikipedia is not - a game guide. It is, however, appropriate for the RuneScape Wiki, and transwiki to that site would be perfectly fine. FCYTravis 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment From Wikipedia IS NOT Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides. If merging all the articles would produce too long an article, it just proves how badly written they all are in the first place. Guides should be kept in places like http://www.runehq.com/, http://www.tip.it/RuneScape/, http://RuneScape.salmoneus.net/, http://www.nomadgaming.com/index.php?page=rs2_guide, http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/online/game/562728.html, and the like. JanesDaddy 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How did you think of that one? The longer the article, the worse it is? And lots of the pages have been hugely re-done to avoid being a game guide, and instead become a databse of information (I myself have worked on the economy and quests articles). If the pages are game guides, then can be cleaned up. Deleting them is way too drastic. There are series for a number of other games, and I dont see them up for deletion - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, WP:NOT a game guide. Lord Bob 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed that there is quite a bit of fancruft here, yet there is no reason to delete all. To put all encyclodedic information on one page would be messy, long, and hard to understand and navigate. Wikipedia should be easy to use. Keep. --Driken 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Modify to be more factual/to the point this would probably be fully possible. Cutting out the guide bits with information/guides to players, and keeping in information about the game itself. Clq 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. These articles can be edited down. Let's try that first before just deleting them all. Cruft can be removed, you don't need to kill encycloepdic content for that. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. What's it to you if we have them here? They don't break any solid rules, there are similar articles about other games, and I feel that they are necessary. The people who want them deleted obviously really hate RuneScape.Dtm142 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Also, we put a lot of work into those! And now the anti-RuneScape/Deletionist community wants to throw it all away/merge it all into one or several oversized articles that will hopefully only take one minute to load on the next Windows computer. Dtm142 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all. The articles here contain a vast and helpful amount of information and resources. Game guides are not encyclopedia material?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_rummy

I then petition the removal of the rules of Gin rummy in the Gin rummy article, such rules can be found on external sites very easily, just as you all have proposed for RuneScape.

Take your arguments into consideration folks. Keep all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.126.56 (talk • contribs)

Quote from WP:NOT(What Wikipedia is not) "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."

• Delete all and merge any worthwhile info into the main RuneScape article. --Revolución (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, valid information for RuneScape fans, let's reward people's good faith in merging stuff. Kappa 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It is valid for RuneScape fans, and all available on RuneScape sites, such as this one, but Wikipedia is encyclopedia NOT a game guide for RuneScape fans. Prodego ^talk 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for RuneScape fans. I'm glad that this information is all available somewhere else, thus proving it is not original research. Kappa 03:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep it all. Is it hurting anyone to keep it here? People put work into making those pages what they are and I find them very helpfull as I play RuneScape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.178.45 (talk • contribs)

• Comment - These all belong in http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/RuneScape, not in the main encyclopedia. If a merge produces huge pages, it proves that the writing style is very poor (despite previous attempts to re-write) because the articles lack conciseness, and also lack primary sources. JanesDaddy 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikibooks per WikiProject CVG content guidelines: "Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it. Such topics should be moved to Wikibooks computer and video games bookshelf. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable." --Muchness 04:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, primarily for the same reasons as stated by Sjakkalle. These articles were edited many times to remove text that made them seem like game guides. However, they still need to be improved to better clarity and remove non-encyclopedic content (which is not a reason for deletion). KBi 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. Goes there rather than here.Hohohob 06:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (some) or Transwiki. RuneScape is becoming a very large article (65K at time of writing). There needs to be somewhere for elaborations to spill into. At the very least, merging the RuneScape series articles into RuneScape would result in an incredibly huge article, even if all the "guide-like" stuff was thrown away. However, I do agree that some RuneScape articles, such as the ones concerning individual enemies (or specific classes of enemies), are non-encyclopedic and do not belong in Wikipedia. Also, one of these days I'm going to go through the RuneScape article to move out all the guide-like stuff. It would be nice to have somewhere to move that stuff to. Someone42 09:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the RuneScape Wikicity, or to Wikibooks, or Wikisource. Wikipedia is not a how-to or game guide. Stifle 11:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The pages are spilted, as the article RuneScape is too large. no point on remerging them. if the articles are informative, there is no point of delete as a pedia, unless highly offensive materials included. RuneScape Items and RuneScape Skills is questioned to be inculde in this area, it is heavily crossed linked to the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspbeetle (talk • contribs)

• Transwiki as per Stifle. This is not a how-to guide and these articles would require more work to fix than delete and start again. -|Localzuk ^(talk) 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki as per above. Just fyi there are a lot of similar articles on the wikpedia dedicated to certain games that can be considered the same thing such as StarCraft units and structures --Larsinio 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all: they help players and people will just put them back up if you delete them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcdd77 (talk • contribs)

• Transwiki or Delete. I don't play the game and can't imagine how anyone who doesn't play the game would be interested in reading about dungeons in RuneScape or any other such gamecruft. If it is valuable and there is a RuneScape wiki, take it there. --Habap 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I dont play WoW, I dont live in China. Are you going to delete those articles too? What a stupid way of looking at things. If you vote delete based on the fact that you dont play it and therefore dont care about it, then there would be little left - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, without prejudice against transwiking if there's somewhere that will have them. These are all how-to guides or highly specific information of interest only to those who already play RuneScape, wholly lacking in context or even content for a non-RS-playing reader. Conceivably, they could be merged and pared down into one or two more-encyclopedic articles, but that's time better spent paring down and rewriting the RuneScape (which could be that one merge target anyway). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wikibooks:RuneScape. Jacoplane 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Most, for the already stated reason that to do otherwise would make the RuneScape article enormous.Deus Homoni 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, optionally Transwiki. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Nifboy 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I play RuneScape as well, but I don't think there needs to be so many articles about the game. --Ixfd64 06:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to delete these pages? At least just make a game guide wiki or something —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 February 2006

• Weak keep. I am not interested in RuneScape at all, and I've seen all these articles mauled badly, both by vandals and well-meaning but inept editing. They are certainly very high-maintenance, and a magnet for fancruft. It does seem, however, like there is too much legitimate, encyclopedic content on RuneScape to fit in a single article. For this reason, I'd prefer it if the articles were kept, and were cleaned up to meet Wikiepdia's standards. --Ashenai 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete insignificant articles. As all RuneScape players should know, the game site has its own forum, which would be clearly more suitable and more attractive to RuneScape players wanting to know something about the game. Much of the information in the pages are available in-game as well, meaning that posting articles specifically on skills and quests seems to be redundant. As a RuneScape player myself, I do not pay much attention to articles and simply "pick up" on the game information while playing. --Yunzhong Hou 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Most, I think it should be kept and\or organised in a portal style. --Kash 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Yes, a portal is a good idea, as there is already a WoW portal - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment TzHaar Fight Cave ended with a keep concensus, the same should apply to this whole AfD, as they are in the same series - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure? Prodego ^talk 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a little disingenuous, as on the 6th, people were advised NOT to comment there and, instead, to come here to comment. --Habap 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's VERY disingenuous. Move them all to wikibooks:RuneScape, delete them from here and you can make all the articles as long as you like. JanesDaddy 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be the way to go. Transwiki then delete Prodego ^talk 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Dtm142 23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep all, if merged it would be far to long and strung out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.117.44 (talk • contribs)
• Transwiki These should be transwiki to wikicities and then deleted. No matter how much we try to control it, new articles just keeping showing up everywhere with tons of faq-like information. It would be better to force it into a single article that vaguely describes the game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Prodego ^talk notes the edit count ONLY of those who disagree with his nomination - if high or low counts are relevant, they are also relevant to the experience or lack of for those who support the nomination. Now if a disinterested party was noting lack of experience, it would be fair, but it appears that the nominator is seeking only to negate the views of those who are anything other than deletionist. Some work is needed, sure, but deletion would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The coverage of some areas is excessive, particularly in "list all" sections of the main article, and rebalancing with the series pages would be better than stuffing the main article. Ace of Risk 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, all users with less then 300 edits have been marked. The reason I note the edit count at all is because people may be directed here from a RuneScape forum or such, and asked to "vote". Note that this isn't a vote, but a disscussion. Prodego ^talk 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The person with 1 vote has stated their opinion in the exact same way as everyone else. Frankly, I dont think it matters too much how many edits someone has. It doesnt take 2000 edits to realise that merging all these articles into 1 will create a complete mess. Now please state the edits counts of people on both sides, or nobody - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Prodego, as an admin you're supposed to be unbias. The way you have handled this so far has been quite bias. J.J.Sagnella 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I nominated the page for deletion, so how could I be unbiased? Also, I am not an administrator. Thirdly, I did state the edit count for all users with less then 300 edits, regardless of how they voted. And finally, users with very low editcounts likly haven't read the policies of Wikipedia. I do not think these articles should be merged anymore, but transwikied instead. Prodego ^talk 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah Prodego, don't be so biased. No, we know that you're not an admin, but you want to be one according to your user page. Dtm142 18:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Yeah, don't be so...whoops, sorry. Don't know what cameover me. Transwiki to RuneScape wiki. Failing that, delete. RasputinAXP _{talk contribs} 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all fancruft for nn game.  Grue 
  • How is RuneScape not notable? - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. Runecraft is a very notable game. These articles, while somewhat different, are very similar to several other series of books or games that have multiple articles. How many hundreds or thousands of articles exist for the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. To dismiss these articles as pure fancruft doesnt hold much weight when compared to how many minor articles have been created for other series like LOTR. If we're going to get rid of these articles, a serious look into similar series articles will also have to be taken. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep All. ScottyBoy is right. Objectively we can't look at the game as a fringe piece, because there are a lot of players out there. And so if we treat this similar to other major works, most notably the LOTR series, a serious change to the format of ALL these works would be necessary. Quote Prodego: "And finally, users with very low editcounts likly haven't read the policies of Wikipedia." This is my first edit ever. But I have read the rules on several occaisions and use wikipedia almost daily in my studies. Thanks for your vote of confidence in the less-vocal among us.

--Loadtoad419 02:16, 11 February 2006

• Comment: Not sure it would be proper to add to the list that late in the game (so I don't), but RuneScape clans should have made the list as well. Algae 09:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • That deserves to be deleted, completely bias, competely useless. I'll make it a Redirect Page.J.J.Sagnella 09:50, 11 February 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.