Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilderness (RuneScape)

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wilderness (RuneScape)

What Wikipedia is not clearly says that Wikipedia is not a game guide. What do I see here? A game guide. An unnecessary article. The RuneScape Wiki has an article on the Wilderness (help is welcomed), I strongly suggest you edit that if you want to keep this. Delete.--Richard 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge and Redirect, There is non-guide info here that is important. It just needs to be skimmed and put in the RuneScape locations page User:KainsSon 02:39, 16 September 2006 (EST)
  • Delete, it's just a game guide. TJ Spyke 21:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge any non-game-guide information to the main article and delete the rest. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 00:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to RuneScape locations, using information in this article to expand the appropriate section. That's what was likely going to happen anyway, as the same has happened to a lot of similar articles recently. Starting an AfD, if anything, slows this process down. It is worthy of inclusion, in the same way as Mordor, Tatooine or Tamriel (to name a few examples) as a highly significant fictional location, the article only looks like a game guide because of a large number of crufters, who are unfamiliar with policy and guidelines and ignore the large fancruft notice on the talkpage. However, I'm not sure if there is quite enough to be said about it to warrant a separate article; although a lot of action takes place there, as the name suggests, there is not very much to see there in comparison to other ingame areas (apart from rocks, hills, ruins and player killers). CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Take a look at RuneScape locations. That article is already huge and unwieldy, and given that the Wilderness comprises roughly half the game, it can easily sustain its own article, using the following:
    • Skull - A key game mechanic, best handled in the area wherein it has relevance
    • A brief discussion of the advancing level limit (to answer questions from people who wonder "well what if I bring in a new character????") and referencing the free world limit.
    • Location of the area within the game world. Fairly self-explanatory; provides context, which is one of the strengths of wiki.
    • Key locations and key NPCs/monsters.
  • I think there's some misunderstanding of the section of WP:NOT dealing with game guides. Look at the context: it's embedded within the "Instruction manuals" section. A key element that many deletionists miss, I think, is that this section is essentially saying "Say what, not how." This article, with the exception (to an extent) of the PvP section, describes what is there. Furthermore, the existence of other wikis should in no way define what is available on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's mission statement should define Wikipedia. Did we immediately remove all Star Trek content because of Memory Alpha? Hardly. Yes, instructions and prescriptions should be nuked on sight. But is this article offering up instructions and prescriptions? If you take two minutes to remove the instructions and prescriptions, is there still an article? Indeed, there is still an article, and a fairly substantial one at that. Captainktainer * Talk 04:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a note, there seems to have been a long and drawn out previous AfD, with nothing reached: AfD Archive (Edit: However, that article seems to be refering to something else, even though it's on the talk page for Wilderness)♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - and pay attention to the comments (and refine the content to what, why but not howto). The Wilderness is a major feature in the game, particularly in the free version, as the main area where players can combat each other. There should easily be enough cruft-trimmed content to sustain an article. Ace of Risk 11:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very small proportion of article is game guide. After a small clean-up, it is an article, a very good article at that, which deserves to be kept. J.J.Sagnella 20:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- Very important aspect of RuneScape, different from virtually every other rpg. RS locations is too big to hold this stuff as well.- User:Merlin Storm
  • KEEP - for all the Keep reasons above. The Wilderness is not just a location in Gielinor; it is a completely different aspect of playing the game of RuneScape. As someone above said, it is the only place on the free worlds that players can combat each other. It is the only place on free and paying worlds where players can combat each other freely, with a "no-holds-barred" kind of fight. Yes, you can multi-combat in the fight arena. But you don't lose your items if you die. The duel arena has its rules and regulations. The Wilderness is a free-for-all, take your chances, get out there and battle to your hearts content area. The Wilderness is the main purpose for most clans, and that section could use some filling out (without listing clan names or game guide type information). There is a little bit that needs to go away. But the article is worthy to stay and is a positive part of the RuneScape series. It needs to stay. Xela Yrag 05:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, Enclopedic description of a location which is highly notable within the game. Not an instruction manual, so the mention of "game guide" in WP:NOT doesn't apply (and needs to be reworded to stop this kind of misinterpretation). Kappa 09:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect. Simply enough, it's not fancrufty enough to merit an AfD, but it does need a lot of cleaning up to do, and also should be placed in Locations. Oh, and if one did want to know any further information about this place, why not ask Jagex themselves instead of relying on the wiki? Makoto
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. +Fin- 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete In no way should this be included. Wikipedia is not a gameguide. (Koolsen0 22:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC))
  • Merge to RuneScape combat and redirect. The wilderness can doubtless be mentioned in Locations too, but the majority of what is here would be better suited to combat, with the Location article being updated later. Even with the material that was still present a few weeks ago ('notable' locations, non-prosificated NPC list), there wasn't enough to warrant a seperate article outside of combat. Whilst I'd echo views that listing more articles from the RS series for AFD -before- merging has taken place is swerving things all over the place, in the case of the wildy article, it's a copy and paste job. Nothing that would help readers understand just why the Wilderness is such an important aspect of RS will be lost by porting this info to combat, and Combat will be strengthened as a result. Since weapons and armour are now merging, combat needs more info or will itself be unsafe. QuagmireDog 23:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
In fairness, I'd said I would oppose this article coming up for AFD. However, this is the last article out of the five articles which could be linked in with combat (combat itself, magic, weapons, armour and this article) left unaccounted for. Merging would result in pretty much every base being covered, I don't see how a particular aspect of RS automatically requires a seperate article if said aspect will quite happily fit in another. Seems like taking half the clean plates out of the cupboard and stuffing them in the tumble dryer 'just cos' to me. QuagmireDog 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, whilst I'd appreciate any thoughts on that ^, has this AFD nomination gotten lost? Seems to have had plenty of opinions already yet it's ten days old now. QuagmireDog 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
CommentYeah, it should be closed soon, and not in another 5 days.Hemhem20X6 01:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I just wish that you could request that administrators close AfDs. Hemhem20X6 05:05, 18 September 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.