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 as an indiscriminant information. Wickethewok 14:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable game information from an MMRPG. Not worthy of its own article. Should be deleted. I considered a PROD for this article, but as it appears to be actively being worked on, I figured the PROD would be removed anyways, and so jumped a step. Also, it appears that the original author intends a whole series of articles like this. He should be dissuaded. Jayron32 05:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• additional information entire article is also a copyvio. Just thought y'all would like to know. --Jayron32 05:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as copyvio, unless Fragrag (talk · contribs) can provide verification that it is licensed under GFDL. Vectro 18:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article claims that it actually has permission to use the information. I believe it should be deleted as cruft and indiscriminate information though. The Kinslayer 09:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.