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 — while there were many arguments advanced in the course of this discussion, the general opinion appears to be that they lack any independent sources which establish the notability of the subject. The concerns over the bulk nomination are valid, but I do not believe that they're serious enough to invalidate the discussion. I would remark that many editors arguments here were of little import due to a lack of rationale behind them — this is not a vote.

Since there is a legitimate merge opportunity here, I've redirected all the articles in question to preserve the history for merger. However, they should not be recreated. --Haemo 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape combat[edit]

Also nominating the following:

RuneScape combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RuneScape gods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RuneScape skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gielinor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

In short: Non-notable gamecruft. In long:

It has been about three months since these were last brought to AfD. In that period little if anything has been done to address these problems:

  1. WP:N - Here we have the main reason why these articles should be deleted (hence why I'm listing them all together); the subjects are simply not notable. These articles lack independent reliable sources, the vast majority of their references being from Jagex, the creator of Runescape. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish notability. As the template at the top of Gielinor confirms, these articles rely "largely or entirely upon a single source", which is simply not good enough. Currently, of 36 references on that page, all but one are from Runescape's official website.
  2. Runescape combat, Runescape skills and Runescape gods are gameguides despite protestations to the contrary in the last AfD, which is something that Wikipedia is not. These are of use only to people who play the game, and those people are not who an encyclopedia article is written for. See WP:CVG/GL#Scope of information.
  3. Also, the reason for many "keep" !votes in previous AfDs has been that the main article is too big (WP:SIZE). The answer to this is simply that the main article needs cleaning up. ANY article can become too big if it goes into unnecessary levels of detail. This means that it needs to have extraneous information removed, NOT used as an excuse to make more articles. Again, EVERY article on Wikipedia needs to prove that it is notable in its own right - notability is not inherited. That Runescape is notable, and therefore can have as many sub-articles as its editors want, is simply not true and therefore not an argument. Runescape itself is notable, and that is why is has its own article: Runescape. Its individual elements however are NOT notable (as demonstrated by the complete lack of sources), so there is no justification for them having articles of their own. Miremare 17:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response like I said in the first paragraph, they are nominated together because they all fail notability requirements first and foremost. Miremare 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response In the absense of anything to prove notability you're resorting to claiming that notability requirements don't apply to Runescape? Why, exactly, does Runescape gods, an article on fictional characters with absolutely no sources to prove notability somehow not not need to prove notability? These are not even a particularly notable part of the game! They don't require any more than a paragraph in the main article, and certainly don't need to be individually listed in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article! And From WP:NOTINHERITED: "If it really is independently notable, provide the evidence to show that", "if there is not enough independently verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, merge the content into the parent article and create a redirect". The Bill Gates article talks about his early life in the Bill Gates article, it doesn't put it in a separate article, and even if it did, there would undoubtedly be sources to justify its notability. This is a classic case of Wikipedia editors deciding what's notable and simply dismissing anyone who doesn't agree. Gielinor: I have given a deletion reason for all four artilces; please read the first paragraph. The contents of other articles has nothing to do with the main article being rated GA either. Miremare 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand WP:N. It applies to whole topics, not individual articles. NOTINHERITED is irrelevant, as these are not separate entities from RS, they are part of it. If they were articles about a player or a developer, they would have to prove notability separately, because players and developers are not lines of RS's source code. Do you see what I mean? It's best to think of these articles as sections of the main article. Please think about the Bill Gates example. If his early life were a lengthy enough subject to justify a separate article, deleting that article under WP:N would be like hacking a huge section of good information out of the Bill Gates topic. Regarding the main article/GA thing, you stated in your nomination that RuneScape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) needs cleanup to accomodate the subpage content. That article's status as a GA implies that it is cleaned up, it would have failed or been delisted if it needed cleaning. No amount of cleaning the main article will free enough space to incorporate the content in the subpages. Subpages are not forbidden; WP:FICT actually encourages splitting into subpages when articles get unwieldy. There is a limit to the effectiveness of cutting back (we've already done a load) - take it too far, and you start damaging good content. I'll reiterate: RuneScape is not some rubbish Flash side-scroller made in 5 minutes for posting to some forum. Just because it is a Javascript browser game doesn't stop it from being at least as big as World of Warcraft et al. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As regards "whole topics" - by splitting gods et al off from Runescape you're making them seperate topics in their own right. I'm sorry to have to disagree with you again, but every article must justify itself. How many "xxxx in popular culture" articles have split off from parents and been subsequently deleted? I could use your logic on this to start an article about Margaret Thatcher's collection of ornamental spoons, and claim immunity from deletion because the parent subject is notable. Would that be acceptable? Of course not. I'm sorry, but this is what WP:NOTINHERITED is about, that's why it's there. You may still see them as sections of the main article but since they've been split they aren't any more. If they were, they would need to be severely cut down as overly detailed game-guide material anyway, and being in a separate article doesn't excuse this. There's also a severe case of WP:WEIGHT here; and the lack of sources should probably suggest that we don't need all these articles anyway. Also the Bill Gates analogy doesn't work because Bill Gates is notable enough to justify multiple articles, were that needed. Being one of the most famous men in the world there are undoubtedly reliable sources such as biographies that talk about his childhood. There are no reliable sources that discuss the subjects of the articles nominated here, which is exactly the problem. Miremare 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are few sources in these articles because most of the information is subject-specific common knowledge, as it is with most fictional creations. No one is questioning the statement that Gielinor is divided into this section and that section, there is no reason to seek secondary sources, anyone who has "visited" Gielinor knows this to be true. There is also little reason to cite location names, or geographic details, remarks about population and resources, it is all easily verifiable. (You will, in fact, find plenty of secondary sources in the form of game guides. Some game guides would even be considered reliable, in that they can be regarded as "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.") As for WP:NOTINHERITED, Gielinor (or Runescape Gods or whatever) is more than a subordinate topic, it is a facet of the whole subject. "Runescape bloggers" would be a subordinate topic. Shoehorn 06:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Jagex sources are fine and completely reliable for getting information on the game. They are not however independent of the subject, and therefore provide no proof of notability. Miremare 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources aren't needed because this is subject-specific common knowledge. (See the "When to cite" essay.) Sources in and of themselves do not prove notability -- this article has few citations. The notability of these subarticles has been argued many times before, and even though there is not a snowball's chance in hell this proposal will succeed, you keep repeating your position that they aren't notable. We are well aware of your position. You wouldn't have posted this tired AfD if you didn't have that position. But how can I trust your judgement on notability, when you simply lump five subarticles into one AfD, again and again and again, and then as your argument you dismiss the arguments of the previous AfDs because you disagree? Shoehorn 23:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources aren't required to reference facts, but they are required to establish notability. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "sources don't prove notability", but if that's what you really think I suggest you take it up on the relevant policy talk page, rather than with me. To answer your other points, Multiplication, a start-class article, not being very well sourced has no bearing on these articles; there are quite a lot of articles on Wikipedia with inadequate sourcing. That doesn't mean it's OK to have inadequate sourcing when there's opposition to the article on notability grounds. And I haven't lumped the articles together "again and again and again"; but just once, because they are all related and have the same major failing. Of course I'm dismissing the previous AfDs, that's why I've brought this one! Should we always abide by each article's first AfD even if we don't agree with it? Concensus can and does change. Also I'm amused that you seem to think I should assume a more neutral stance in this debate, rather than defend my own reasoning. :) But like I said below, I'm only going to repeat myself (I'm not the only one, and it takes two or more to argue :)) so I'm going to bow out for now. Miremare 00:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Use common sense. That is not what NOTINHERITED is about. By that logic, you could delete every subpage on Wikipedia, which is obviously unacceptable. You might as well say "subpages are forbidden", when in fact WP:FICT says the exact opposite. 'X in popular culture' articles are being deleted on the grounds of being trivia, not non-notability, as would be the Thatcher's spoons article (WP:NONSENSE thrown in for that one too). NOTINHERITED does not demand that each tiny little part of a single topic proves notability by itself; it demands that Steve Ballmer proves his own notability, he doesn't inherit any from Bill. The last mass AfD of these pages had almost exactly the same argument (WP:N). The result? A pretty resounding keep. Why? Notability guidelines, including WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED apply to whole topics, not individual pages and (sub)pages. CaptainVindaloo t c e 18:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete every subpage on Wikipedia: No, not at all. No one would say that any page that asserts its notability with multiple independent reliable sources should be deleted, at least not on WP:N grounds. I would say that "common sense" is highly subjective in this case; it's pretty likely that we have quite different opinions of what a common sense outcome would be here. :) Of course, subpages aren't forbidden, but they have to be on a notable topic, otherwise what's the point in having notability requirements? You could justify the existence of ANY article that has a connection to any other article. At the risk of repeating myself, individual articles (which is what we're talking about here whether you refer to them as "subpages" or not) need to prove their own notability. This is what stops subjects that have a lot of fans and editors but not enough real-world notability from having endless subarticles on everything to do with the game, whether notable or not. Note that Runescape used to be a prime example of this. Anyway, your argument seems to be that these articles are all basically on exactly the same subject, but this is not the case. Look at the article names for their subjects. These are four individual subjects related to, but quite apart from, Runescape. If these were all contained within a Runescape (continued) article I would have absolutely no problem with it notability-wise (though I'm not at all sure what the policy is regarding something like that and my other main argument would still apply). Simply put, when in the Runescape article, they are part of that subject, but when moved to their own page, they are being presented as separate subjects in their own rights, worthy of their own articles. The bottom line is notability of the subject. If these subjects are notable, please demonstrate it with the requisite multiple reliable sources. But you don't even appear to be claiming that these subjects are independently notable... or are you? Miremare 19:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They don't need to be "independently notable" because they are not independent! They are not a separate topic and they are not being presented as a separate topic! They are presented on separate pages simply because we don't want people to get bored waiting for the page to load. That's why the titles contain the word "RuneScape". They are all part of the same topic. There are 66 sources in the main article alone (admittedly, a couple of these are from Jagex and fansites) that say "RuneScape is a notable topic". Saying that because they are on separate pages due to size reasons, they are automatically separate, unrelated topics just doesn't make any sense at all. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically admitting they're not notable but insisting they still deserve their own pages. These are seperate subjects. They are articles in their own right and do not cover Runescape but a narrow non-notable element of it. You have MADE them separate subjects by deciding that they're notable enough to deserve their own pages with no justification (i.e., Wikipedia editors deciding themselves what's notable!), rather than, for example, giving them short sections in the main article, as their lack of real-world notability justifies. What makes these subjects notable other than the fact that you've decided they should be? The answer, apparently, is nothing. There is no justification in saying that because Runescape is notable everything about it must be notable too - that's just not how it works and is not true. This is a quite bizarre argument, and I think I've said all I can on it without repeating myself again. The reasons for deletion are clear, simple, and valid. Miremare 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Criticism of Windows Vista has no relation, nothing whatsoever to do with Windows Vista. Right. Please revise WP:N and WP:FICT. You'll notice that they permit and encourage splitting into subpages, rather than forbidding them. The exact same argument, almost word-for-word, was used in one of the other AfD keeps, the closing admin remarking that "the argument that this stands alone as a subject I (User:Herostratus) find unconvincing". Read: "this is not a separate topic from RuneScape". Therefore, as RuneScape is a notable topic, WP:N is not a valid argument. These are not separate topics, no matter how many times you say they are. Our justification for splitting was WP:SIZE alone. WP:SIZE is a valid reason for splitting, these are pretty useless as walkthroughs, and "gamecruft" is basically saying "I don't like it". CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of Windows Vista has real-world relevance, especially since people are upgrading to Vista and all, and is very notable as witnessed by repeated media reports on Vista's faults, not just within computer news, but even general news. RuneScape the game is notable. RuneScape the battle system is not. Doom the game is notable. Doom gameplay is not. The fact the gameplay of Doom was addictive for its time is notable, but not enough to include as a separate article. How the game plays is not, beyond the brief description given there. Likewise, the way RuneScape plays is notable enough to mention in the main article. But the in-depth analysis is not notable enough to be put in a separate article. Now, even if the detail may not actually be useful as a gameguide, it's still pretty useless for the general reader. Ong elvin 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point I'm making. I'm saying that just because Criticism of Vista is a separate article, it doesn't make it a separate subject, completely unrelated to the main article, which this logic is implying. Criticism is part of the Windows Vista topic. It too is there because it outgrew the main article's capacity. You would't go into a one-page game article and wipe out the gameplay section on the grounds of being non-notable, would you? If a page seems excessively in-depth, it should be cut down, not deleted. You don't demolish your house when it is in need of redecorating, do you? There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of sufficiently describing the gameplay on the main article without being GA-delisted due to length and having people complaining about the loading time on the talk page. To fix those problems, we'd have to split content out again per WP:FICT, which is exactly what has happened here. CaptainVindaloo t c e 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are related subjects, they are not the same subject. One is about Windows Vista, the other is about criticism of Windows Vista. Miremare 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed any of my points, you're just repeating the same arguments, again and again, even after I presented precedents and policies against them! I'm starting to lose my cool a little now, so I'm going to leave it for a bit. I sincerely apologise if I have caused any offence. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. Criticism of Windows Vista is clearly a subsection/subtopic of Windows Vista. If a coworker and I were having a conversation about the problems with Windows Vista, and someone asked: "What are you talking about?" I would say: Windows Vista. I wouldn't say: Criticism of Windows Vista. I would make the same argument for Runescape Combat: "What are you talking about?" Me: Runescape. Shoehorn 01:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have to prove that Criticism of Windows Vista is notable to justify dedicating an encyclopedia article to it. Look at that article's extensive references section and compare it to any of these nominated Runescape articles - THAT is the difference. All articles need to prove their own notability, and if they can't do that they don't deserve a dedicated article, it's as simple as that. I'm sorry, but this is not difficult to understand, and situations like this are what the notability requirements are for. Miremare 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You did not address my point. It is quite clear you hold the position that the notability guidelines apply to every article. Others have argued that notability applies to subjects, and subjects can span more than one article. You maintain your position in defiance of common reasoning, and since you continue to be obstinate on this point I see no point in discussing it further with you. Shoehorn 17:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I not only hold that every article must assert the significance and notability of the subject, but that each article is inherently a different subject. Runescape is a subject, Runescape gods is a subject, Runescape combat is a subject, etc. They all cover their own subjects which, incidentally, is entirely the point of encyclopedia articles. If the notability of these subjects can't be proved, they shouldn't have articles in an encyclopedia. Miremare 18:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might hold that, but WP:N, WP:FICT and that other AfD I mentioned don't. I also see little further need to argue, for the same reason as Shoehorn. You are just repeating the same argument, even after it has been pointed out as flawed. CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been "pointed out" that my argument is "flawed" because it isn't. Your skewed interpretation of what makes something notable is the only argument you have. Notability requirements are clear if you're not looking for ways to muddy the waters. And, if I'm repeating myself (I might point out the you're doing rather the same thing) it's because the argument for deletion is, essentially, so mind-numbingly simple and easy to understand. Miremare 10:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been pointed out! Have you read that AfD I linked? Where the exact same argument was used and failed? Obviously not, since you've not addressed it or defended your argument. Simply saying "this argument is not flawed" isn't good enough. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD's don't matter. This AfD is where the debate is taking place. Whatever conclusions, rightly or wrongly, that people have come to in the past on this matter is irrelevant. AfD rulings and consensus are not permanent. If anyone's argument is flawed, it's yours as you are unable to quote policy or guidelines to support your argument, which is that Runescape has an umbrella of notability for as many other articles as it wants. Miremare 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't defended your argument. I can only conclude that you can't. Previous AfD's do matter. Precedents are used all the time, not only in AfDs, but with things like old ARBCOM decisions being used to deal with new miscreants. If precedents didn't matter, then what was the point in building lists like these? Don't try the 'only essays' line, you've invoked one of them in this debate, and besides, they're only lists of precedents, not someone's opinion or interpretation of policy (the reason why essays are so controversial). And kindly refrain from accusing me of ignoring policy, I've backed up everything I've said with it, quotes and all. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You state that WP:FICT supports you. I say that it doesn't. Let's look at the first section, defining notability. It states there, quite clearly, that you must provide real world context. Sales figures, critical acceptance, development, cultural impact, and using primary and secondary sources. Runescape combat et al does none of that. Now the second section, dealing with fiction. The first subsection, notable material, does state that you can split topics off its parent article, I'm not arguing that. What it also states, however, is that topics must provide real-world significance before they can be split, and this information must be added before it is split. You didn't do that when you split the article. As for non-notable topics, that is therefore where these articles all stand. Does the potential exist for it to show its real-world notability? No. So don't keep it. Can you merge it to provide better context? Yes, that's an option. Can it be transwikied? Yes, that's also an option. Also notice that last sentence in the section. Articles that are too small or narrow in scope — even if they are notable — should be merged into a larger article to avoid disorganization and a potential overload of plot summary. So we also have that quote to show that even sub-topics must be notable. Ong elvin 00:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) You can only conclude I can't? Perhaps you should read this page again; I've done nothing but defend my argument... And please show me again which policy says you can have as many articles as you like without proving notability, as I - and most other Wikipedians - must have missed it. All I've noticed you mention is WP:SIZE and WP:FICT, as justification for large articles to be split. This is countered by the fact that neither of them encourage non-notable elements of articles to be split into an article of their own. But then they don't need to, because of WP:N. Also, this is the current AfD, this is the one that's directly affecting the articles at this time, not previous AfDs. If you want to argue a point, do it again, don't just say "I argued it before and won", that doesn't wash at all. Miremare 04:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read WP:N, WP:FICT and WP:SIZE, because it's obvious that you haven't (skim reading the first paragraph isn't sufficient), you'd know that SIZE provides one of the best possible reasons for splitting long articles (technical and ease of access): "if an article is significantly longer than that [32k], it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries", "current mobile browsers and some older PC web browsers cannot correctly edit long pages because they crop the source text to 32 KB". FICT, the appropriate version of N, endorses this: "topics within a fictional work (characters, places, items, concepts, etc.) are covered in the article on that work of fiction, with two exceptions: [...] to a limited extent, sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style. Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability, but might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article." As I have stated before, the only reason these articles were split from RuneScape was because the parent article was about 200k in size and was repeatedly failing GA/FA noms as a result, so they should be treated as sections of the main article; this is why your separate article = separate topic argument is nonsensical. N talks about the notability of topics, not articles, and we know from the separate existence of Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Featured topics that articles != topics. 66 references prove that RuneScape is notable, no matter how many times someone says otherwise. Flatly denying that precedents matter doesn't change the fact that they do, and are used every day on Wikipedia. Just because you don't like the game and these articles doesn't justify excluding this series from the right to have subpages where necessary that is available to every other fiction topic on Wikipedia. CaptainVindaloo t c e 15:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The salient part of the above quote being "even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability", so where is it? Also please note that WP:FICT#Non-notable topics says that articles that "do not show notability can be kept for a short time, merged, moved elsewhere, or deleted". WP:FICT also says that "If the article becomes too long and a split would create a sub-article that does not establish its own notability, then the content should be trimmed" rather than split. Does that sound familiar? Regarding topics/articles: I'm sorry, but this is just wrong! You can NOT justify the existence of any number of articles on non-notable parts of a notable topic like this (where have all the other Runescape articles gone, eh?), it's plainly ridiculous! And, please don't play the victim on behalf of Runescape - I have not said that these should be deleted because I don't like Runescape. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this "precedents" thing either, it does not matter here, unless you're saying most of the other extraneous Runescape articles have been deleted, so these should be too, but I've a feeling you're not saying that... Miremare 16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to be civil here. We can hurl accusations at each other all day about who hasn't read what policy. Miremare has made a point that shows that he may have read the policy more thoroughly than you - but we're here to discuss the policy, not each others' reading skills. Notability is not inherited, even by branch-off articles. Does that leave you in a pickle, between WP:N and WP:SIZE? Perhaps. But this article fails notability requirements, even those specific to video game articles. --Cheeser1 16:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've omitted "[they] might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article". You might as well have gone into the main article and deleted a huge section of text making a vague reference to notability. Have you tried reading some of the game reviews recently? Some of the references in the main article? There lies your proof of the RuneScape topic's notability. Please do not try to deny their existence, and please stop saying these are separate topics; they are not and you know it - simply saying "these are separate topics", no matter how forceful your words are, doesn't override the evidence. Please stop saying RuneScape is non-notable (for that is what you are doing), when it clearly passes notability requirements by a mile; by invoking FICT#Non-notable topics you are claiming the RuneScape topic is non-notable. This is wrong in so many ways. Please stop trying to deny this topic the subpages it - along with every other topic on Wikipedia - is entitled to and needs. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell of giving RS a sufficient, encyclopedic coverage on one page, and there is no reason to try to, when subpages are the sensible option permitted by every relevant policy, and allowed for every other fictional topic that needs them. Please stop accusing me of trying to justify an indefinite number of subpages. We (that is, the RuneScape editors) were responsible for removing the articles redirected or deleted in the last couple of years, because we felt they were unnecessary. Not once was notability mentioned. Why? Because it is not relevant or a concern. Once again, against the evidence, you flatly deny that precedents matter, even though you've used them in this debate. They work both ways, you know; to say that precedents only apply for delete arguments is the very definition of 'unfair'. Yes, consensus can change, but it doesn't always do so and depends on depends on things like precedents. Splitting this content was entirely justified and appropriate - it was recommended by our ease of access policies and suggested by other editors - what would you do in the same situation? Delete it and forever be failing GA/FA on comprehensiveness grounds? CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would trim them down to what needs to be said. Runescape does not have such a notable combat system, skills system, list of gods, or world, that such detail needs to be gone into. Aside from the facts that I've already cited as to why these are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia, it lends these things an undue weight that they simply do not deserve. You can continue insisting that these should stay, but WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:SIZE and WP:CVG/GL say otherwise.
I see you've omitted "[they] might not include that information in the same article (due to said technical reasons). In these situations, the sub-article should be viewed as still being a part of the parent article, and judged as if it were still a section of that article": Yes, but you still have to prove notability to show it deserves its own article - see the bolded quotes in my last post. There is just no getting away from this basic fact. Miremare 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same question, same answer: read some of the game reviews and references in the main article. I'll give you a head start; this BBC News article is an interesting read. Hell, this page gives a citation to an actual journal article about the subject (I'll see if I can get hold of that). Regarding the example article; what would you do if you already had trimmed down the content as much as possible, and it was still far too long? And sections about gameplay, the plot, major characters are quite appropriate; otherwise you'd have an article saying "X is a computer game. Generic gaming magazine quite likes it. Generic console magazine didn't so much because of control issues. Genericgamingwebsite.com thought 'meh'. It has the musics. It wants a BBC Micro to run on. ((vg-stub))", which would defy the point of being an encyclopedia. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those BBC sources, reliable as they are, don't provide notability to anything other than Runescape as a whole - they're not about the combat system, the gods etc. - they're just about Runescape. You need sources providing significant coverage to the subject in question to legitimise a sub-article. And as for length, look at how Maple Story does it as another user suggested; an overview of the game as a whole, with links to more detailed StrategyWiki articles heading various sections. There is no reason why Runescape cannot do the same and progress to FA - you do not need to go into such detail to achieve FA status. I accept that when Runescape was split up into various articles it was done in good faith and at the suggestion of a reviewer, but the editors should have made sure that what they split was suitable. Miremare 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy of the journal article, and it goes into a surprising level of detail describing the setting and the gameplay - a section of a couple of paragraphs each for settings, combat and skills (skills as 'work'). It's there to provide context for the article (on behaviour in virtual worlds; whereabouts people hang about and why, and what they do, be it fighting monsters or eachother, or mining and smithing for profit, to name a couple of the examples the researchers studied), but it's certainly not trivial, and passes WP:RS and WP:N reliability requirements easily; it is an academic research report, after all. I still maintain that these are perfectly legitimate, valid subpages, equivalent to the subpages permitted for every other fiction series. I still maintain that it is innappropriate and ridiculous to force notability guidelines on subpages of clearly notable topics just because of technicalities, in violation of the spirit of Wikipedia and the rules. That is the definition of wikilawyering. The MapleStory solution shouldn't be a compulsory measure for every other article because the editors there found it works for that topic; if they needed to split content into subpages, they would be allowed to. There are many more subpages of many different topics that are very much like these, so there is no reason whatsoever for this topic to be banned from having them. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires more than just one independant, non-trivial source. And those articles you mentioned don't even link to any article dedicated to RuneScape's gameplay. About the only way those articles you link provide Gameplay information is to set the context of why they pick RuneScape over any other RPG. All other information is to explain what they are researching specifically, not about the Gameplay itself. Ong elvin 01:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Maple Story solution isn't and shouldn't be a compulsory measure, it's just a good way of doing it, and there's no reason it shouldn't work for Runescape considering the lack of alternatives. Anyway, what exactly is this source then? Let's not get too excited about it yet as not all academic research papers are reliable. But as Ong elvin points out, you need multiple reliable independent sources to establish notability anyway. Furthermore, your assertion that every article is somehow "entitled" to sub-articles is not true, as has already been covered above about the need to prove notability for sub-articles. And requiring notability is in no way "going against the spirit of Wikipedia"; Wikipedia is not here to include all information, and no encyclopedia would include an article on a non-notable subject, that's just not what encyclopedias do. And also claiming that requiring notability is in violation of the rules is quite the most ridiculous thing I've yet heard in this AfD. Notability is not a "technicality" to be overcome by, ahem, wikilawering; it is a hard and fast cornerstone of the encyclopedic process that can not be brushed under the carpet simply because you don't think it should apply to your articles. Miremare 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember your and Ong elvin's proposal for an all-out ban on subpages of any kind, at WT:VG#Request For New Guideline? The one that you apparently abandoned after several people came along and called it things like ridiculous instruction creep? That was called 'wikilawyering to remove content' too, and it had effectively the same basis. Regarding "not all academic research papers are reliable" - true, but these tend to be rejected by the journal's review panel, if they even get that far. In fact, an unreliable paper slipping through the net is so rare that Private Eye reports on such an incident in the current issue (Eye 1194, 'Corn Fakes', page 26). If it were common, they wouldn't see fit to report on it, see? I'm not saying the spirit of Wikipedia is to include anything and everything. I'm saying that it isn't to exclude certain content based on technicalities. There is only one rule: ignore all rules. Use common sense, common sense always trumps convoluted process here. The notability guidelines are really there to stop people from creating articles about their newly-formed band, home made computer game, freewebs site, or dog, not to go round deleting subpages of notable topics. CaptainVindaloo t c e 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not true - notability requirements are to prevent articles on non-notable subjects, whatever the subject - there is nothing to exclude certain subjects, it covers all. I don't know whether you can't be bothered to read what I write in response to you, or are just ignoring it or taking me for an idiot, but again asserting that a total lack of notability is a "technicality" is complete and utter rubbish. It is the definitive reason for inclusion or exclusion of an article from Wikipedia and it is 100% required of an article in this and any other (proper) encyclopedia. Also, as the last refuge of the argument-less, you're doing yourself no favours invoking WP:IGNORE. As for my comments at WT:VG#Request For New Guideline - read them again. I did not "abandon it after several people" had called it anything. What I said, in my very first post on the matter, was that I agreed in principle with the suggestion, because in theory it would prevent pages such as these, but that sub-articles "are covered by WP:N anyway", and that such a new guideline would be "unlikely to have much effect". If you think it needed abandoning after saying that, well... can't help you there. But that discussion isn't really relevant to this one anyway, so let's not get sidetracked. Miremare 19:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I added this last comment after the AfD had closed, though there was no edit conflict. Someone remove it and this if they object to the archive being modified... Miremare 19:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh* Another blow for common sense on Wikipedia. Please don't 'play the victim' as you would say (you haven't had any of your arguments conveniently ignored or dismissed with a more forceful repetition) and please don't dismiss one of Wikipedia's two golden rules as 'the last refuge of the argument-less', (especially when it was a suggestion that you read it so you may understand the ridiculousness of nuking chunks of notable subjects because of clever reinterpretations and a failure/refusal to distinguish between articles and topics). Don't go declaring any great victories, legitimate subpages like these don't stay deleted for long. CaptainVindaloo t c e 00:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note deletion reasons 1 and 3; The notability of Runescape itself is irrelevant to this discussion. Miremare 23:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read them and disagree with you; these are subpages of Runescape and do not need to establish notability independently. — brighterorange (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which policy says this? Miremare 21:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N, oddly enough. It refers to the notability of topics, not articles. And topics do not equal articles, hence we have Featured Articles and Featured Topics. CaptainVindaloo t c e 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The topic, Runescape, is notable and has an article on it. However, not everything to do with a notable topic is itself notable - this is a self-evident fact. Articles have to justify themselves with reliable sources or they are liable to get deleted. They cannot just say "part of a notable topic!" and get to ignore the basic requirements for any encyclopedia article. Would the article Use of the word "the" in Runescape be suitable for inclusion? By your logic yes, because Runescape is a notable topic. I thought you were urging common sense? Miremare 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an article like that falls under TRIVIA, not N. CaptainVindaloo t c e 13:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALL articles are subject to WP:N. Miremare 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I meant to say "an article like that would be deleted under TRIVIA, not N". A simple typo. CaptainVindaloo t c e 01:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I would vote for Combat and Skills to be merged, and Gods merged with Gielinor, and then both resulting articles shortened drastically. Ong elvin 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A gentle reminder for rest of the "this looks like a game guide" crowd: this is a debate, not a vote. Also, this nomination is not for one specific article, but for several, each of which should satisfy the arguments given for deletion (and of course they don't). Shoehorn 07:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoehorn, this is a discussion. And several have said that it looks like a game guide, with various reasons why it classifies as such. Whether you like it or not, a game guide does not fall within Wikipedia's scope, and an article being of such a nature is more or less valid grounds to delete said article. "Game Guide" is a perfectly valid reason to give in support of a gaming article's deletion, and if you would actually read the scope guidelines and try to comprehend, and then review the articles in a neutral light, you would see that they truly do not belong on the main Wikipedia. Now, really, the articles belong on a Gaming Wiki, and if you really wanted to "keep" them, do what MapleStory did: leave a link to the Gaming Wikis on the game's main Wiki. Ong elvin 10:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it should be noted that although the Final Fantasy series is a very high profile game, easily more so than Runescape, the editors of the articles are smart enough to keep the information on the combat systems concise, without bogging it down with minutiae. And policy dictates not to go into minutiae unless it has sufficient context. Now, even if we agree that the article is not a gaming guide, the excessive listing of attributes and classes still falls prey to WP:NOT#STATS and this rule of thumb straight from WP:CVG/GL.

A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Keep in mind that video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers; remember the bigger picture.

Using the mum example from a bit earlier, your mum would be the non-gamer. If it has absolutely no value to her at this point, it does not belong here. Ong elvin 10:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You keep spinning out this tale about someone's mum not being interested in the article, but this is a very weak argument. You have simply declared that there is no general audience for these articles, with no evidence whatsoever. I can make the same argument about the Economy of Guinea-Bissau. My mum quickly becomes bored by this article, it is not interesting to her, it has no value to her. Shoehorn 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually trying to give an example of why the article is not a general article. And I know it was a lousy example. Ong elvin 14:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Gods' is not about the RS gods, it's about a glut of NPCs, the vast majority of which are minor in the extreme. It gives undue weight to extremely unimportant NPCs that the average player couldn't give a monkey's about, let alone an outside observer. All of these characters could be discussed in as much detail as contributors could possibly want on either the RS wiki or one of many RS fansites which would probably jump at the chance to host as much detail as they can get. There's naff-all reason to keep such a shoddy article when the relevant material could be merged.

The first three gods are heavily involved in the creation and shaping of the fantasy world which RuneScape is wrapped around. They are relevant and can be discussed (without going into excessive detail) within the Glienor article, improving it. It would then stop the in-out of irrelevant cruft and present the genuinely important 'gods' without the numerous also-rans getting a free ride.

In the fullness of time the Glienor article could be cut down then built up with other details like the history of Glienor, the God Wars etc. - by which point it would be one of only one or two RS sub-articles. Again, there's no ass-afire rush, but at least getting rid of 'gods' would result in one broader article.

Even if this does trainwreck, could the closing admin. state whether or not they believe Gods could be listed separately for closer scrutiny (and if all that is the case, could someone kindly do so!). It's about time that one got its marching orders. 86.138.199.119 13:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And before someone says "merging will lose info", I could collapse combat into less than half of its current size whilst retaining the relevant information, the talk page of skills shows at least one contributor arguing that the information there is excessive. They could be folded together to produce excellent material for future merging and refinement and everybody wins.86.138.199.119 13:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usefull is not a criterion for inclusion. OSbornarf 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is...85.166.230.3 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't - see WP:USEFUL. Miremare 22:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RuneScape skills: keep - subpage due to WP:SIZE - information on skills may need to be cut down, however.
RuneScape combat: simplify and merge to skills - merge to skills, combat in RuneScape is not that interesting.
Runescape gods: delete RuneScape's storyline and major characters due not seem to be notable, much less warrant inclusion.
OSbornarf 20:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pot, kettle, black. anonymous keeps are verboten, in your mind, yet anonymous deletes are perfectly acceptable? there's a word for that. hypocracy. 209.209.214.5 21:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean hypocrisy. And now that I'm logged in, Delete. Zeality 18:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are ove 1 million paying member files, meaning jagex makes 5 million dollars MONTHLY, without counting advertisement profits. Any information on something this big is good. Of course most of the information on the game will come from the game website itself- That is the ONLY COMPLETELY reliable source on actual game facts. Zantaggerung 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BIGNUMBER, and WP:N for why independent sources are required as well as ones from the official website. Miremare 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:JUSTAPOLICY. 209.209.214.5 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
because, out of wikipedia's million+ articles, four are dedicated to runescape, you think wikipedia is now, automatically, "runescapeopedia"? riiiiiight. i suppose you also think everyone in the world is a citizen of vatican city. after all, vatican city has 783 residents, so obviously the 6.5 billion who don't live there are residents, as well. gotta love that agamemnon2 logic (tm) 209.209.214.5 21:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since you people like throwing around WP:NOT, check out WP:PAPER.

also, the whole WP is not a game guide or a how to manual or whatever is stupid. wikipedia has "how to"'s on calculating the greatest common divisor and proving the euclidean algorithm but i don't see you proposing those for deletion. and don't defend yourself with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. by condemning the runescape articles for violating alleged wikipedia rules that other wikipedia articles violate is to pick on runescape, exclusively. all you do is alienate the editors who contributed to this editor - you make them resentful - you make them more likely to become vandals. but that's ok, i suppose, so long as you people get your little hard-ons for deleting such articles, isn't it?

incidently, if you think only articles that can cite site like cnn.com and bbc.co.uk should be included on wikipedia, here's an idea for you. redirect wikipedia to news.google.com.

but whatever. debating with miremare is clearly pointless per the "miremare is always right" rule. <sarcasm>and why wouldn't miremare always be right? if he didn't think it was the right position, he wouldn't have adopted it.</sarcasm> 209.209.214.5 21:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW sure does make it sound like AfD's are decided by vote counts and not "whom-so-ever has a more valid argument". and besides, the admin who takes the action will likely have their own opinions. deciding which argument is more valid by someone whose opinions are already biased is like asking a creationist to decide whether creationism or evolutionism has more valid arguments. both of them have made up their minds before they ever start reading the arguments. 209.209.214.5 18:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Gielinor 209.209.214.5 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both those sources appear to be the same article and mention Gielinor in passing. There needs to be "significant coverage" in a source to satisfy WP:N. Not to mention that there needs to be multiple sources too. Miremare 16:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i see. interesting. i suppose you also oppose Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Bonds 714th home run because that has hundreds of reliable sources? 209.209.214.5 17:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, he said they are necessary, not sufficient. You need significant coverage. That's not even enough, but you don't even have that yet. Also, you have already made your case. You need not respond repeatedly to other people or repeat the same arguments - the number of times you repeat yourself does not affect the outcome of this AfD. --Cheeser1 18:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please do tell me where i've repeated the same argument. please. can you back up your statements or are you just talking out of your ass?
and what happens if i, for example, come up with new arguments? i suppose those arguments are, in your mind, no longer fair game, because i already cast my vote? maybe i should create multiple wikipedia accounts, so that i can present new arguments whenever i come up with them! or maybe i should just wait until this AfD is over before casting my vote. that way, by the time i actually do cast it, it won't be possible for me to come up with new arguments after i've voted. oh - oh - and those mediawiki developers are idiots, too. they thought they could update mediawiki after their first release. fags. they should have gotten it right the first time. if they were unable to do so, tough. that's their problem. making new releases is woefully irresponsible of them. at least according to cheeser1 logic (tm) 209.209.214.5 18:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The least you could do is make an attempt to be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]. Until you do so, I'm not going to bother responding to you. Especially since the necessity (but not sufficiency) of significant media coverage still shows that these articles explicitly fail WP:N (not to mention the specific sub-policy on video games). --Cheeser1 19:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
whether or not you believe my points are valid is moot. you violated WP:AGF and misrepresented my points by saying that all i've been doing is quoting myself over and over again 209.209.214.5 20:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The result of such a merge would be complaints of long waits and timeouts on the talkpage, GA-delisting due to length and, ironically, content being split out again to solve the problem. This is exactly how these subpages came into being. CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must be possible to trim the whole lot down to something short and concise, and dump all the rest. 4-5 paragraphs at most would suffice. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Not by a long shot. We've tried. We've already cut a skipload in the last year-and-a-half. The current arrangement is about right. They were split in the first place at the suggestion of FA/GA/PR reviewers because the main article was too long. CaptainVindaloo t c e 23:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, lord. What a mess. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add that that's the sort of reason one can justify the existence of Criticism of Windows Vista as a separate article - it has notability within the context of computing; hell even outside of computing it has notability. The characters of FFseries have notability outside the context of Final Fantasy; and within gaming at large. Even now some gaming news articles mention those characters from any random FF game on occasion. Ong elvin 00:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CVG/GL contains just one instance of the word 'notability' (using page search, Ctrl-F in Windows), which is used in a passage talking about the notability of entire games (ie, why reception sections are so important), not individual aspects of it. The very guideline you cite disagrees with you. There are featured articles which are equivalent to the RS subpages, and I don't see anyone AfDing them. This notability argument is completely baseless, and contrary to the very policies it cites. The gameguide argument is unsubstantiated and empty. The gamecruft argument is not even policy based, and might as well be phrased "delete because I don't like it". The only response to reasoned debunking is repetition. CaptainVindaloo t c e 02:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not cite that guideline, I was using common sense. That should be obvious. The point is that if you justify notability in the context of the topic itself, that would mean a complete game guide, cruft and whatnot on RuneScape would be perfectly valid in an encyclopaedia that should be about general things. Regardless, Wikipedia should provide information at a somewhat general level. Those articles are in-depth analyses of one aspect of the game. All the Final Fantasies and Wolfenstein 3Ds of the world don't even have an article dedicated to their gameplay, just a section in their main article. Why should a far more notable game with a more complex and innovative and notable battle system have less coverage? Ong elvin 03:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's take a look, just picking a title at random I find there are some 70 kilobytes dedicated to the Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Now that is just one game out of a series of 12+, most of which have subarticles about characters, music, the game world. Now do you want to come up with some kind of notability calculus which determines how much space and how many articles WP should dedicate for each game in a series, like 200k of text (3-4 articles) for every 100,000 units sold, or 100k (1-2 article) for every 100,000 subscribers? Are you going to be able to justify that, when few people are still playing FF8, but 76,000 people are playing Runescape right now? Aren't we giving undue weight to the diminishing notability of a game from 1999, when in fact, despised as it may be, Runescape is steadily increasing in cultural significance? Wouldn't it be nice if in a few years when all those teenage Runescape players become adults, they will still be able to find a decent WP article about the world of Gelinor, written with authority? I thought that was how encyclopedias were supposed to function. Shoehorn 06:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as far as gameplay and combat systems go, these things impact far more deeply in online multiplayer games than they do in single player console games. In console games you are competing with a fixed construct which you must master in order to "win". In an online game, the relationship between how different players operate the game determines the game experience. The encyclopedic coverage of any online game would be made more complete by including an examination of such gameplay issues. In other words, since Runescape is about player combat (and world exploration, and collecting resources), combat (...) is an important subject for the article(s). Shoehorn 07:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoehorn: We aren't meant to be providing complete coverage, that isn't what an encyclopedia's for. That's what gaming wikis are for. And there's no reason you can't have adequate, and indeed FA, coverage of Runescape without spreading it out over a series of articles, making undue claims of notability for certain apparently random aspects of the game. I notice nobody has answered the WP:WEIGHT issue... And Characters of Final Fantasy VIII? This isn't an argument - OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, these articles demonstrate their own real world notability, and those that don't, just like any other article, should be AfD'd. Finally, Runescape being "despised" by whoever has nothing to do with this nomination, in case that's what you mean. Games like Runescape aren't really my cup of tea, but I have no reason to dislike it and even less inclination to nominate articles for deletion on grounds of personal taste.
CaptainVindaloo: please do show us a Featured Article comparable to these. Miremare 10:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. There are FAs Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and List of Metal Gear Solid characters, as well as the GA rated Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series, Characters in Devil May Cry, Characters of StarCraft and Characters of Final Fantasy XII which are equivalent to Gods (Gods being a somewhat mistitled characters article, the Gods being pretty much the only recurring characters in RS lore, which goes back thousands of years); GAs Black Marsh, Ivalice, Universe of Kingdom Hearts and World of Final Fantasy VIII (Gielinor); and GA Final Fantasy character classes (Skills/Combat). That's just current videogame FAs and GAs, I haven't mentioned those delisted, and roughly similar articles on physical games (Warhammer, D&D, etc), films, books, comics and whatever else. Now, I can't say I've played most of those I've listed (hell, I've never even heard of a couple), so I am not familiar at all with the content, but I, and apparently nobody else, would dream of AfDing them, regardless of their quality. I thought you'd invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think we can make an exception to that; Featured and Good rating is something every article should aspire to, surely. CaptainVindaloo t c e 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies to comparisons to any article, featured or not. --Cheeser1 15:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
for what it's worth, i disagree with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. see Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#deleting WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. i'd be curious to hear your thoughts 209.209.214.5 16:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the main reason they wouldn't be deleted is that they aid in the understanding of multiple "unconnected" articles. (Obviously I use that term very loosely.) The Characters in Devil May Cry, Castlevania, and FFclasses don't concentrate on one game. It's more akin to an article like Mega Man (series). First up, Combat/Skills. Combat and Skills are not part of the fictional universe, they are part of the game mechanics and how they are played. You compare Combat/Skills to the FFclasses article, which is all good, but there's a difference here. Notice how the FFclasses article is a lot more generalised? It doesn't go into detail of how the class actually plays in each game specifically. It does list attributes, but more so with the intent of explaining how similar classes are different; but as I said it's a lot more general. Furthermore, the FFclasses article does not list every single class in the series, only the major/recurring classes. RScombat lists attributes, combat styles, how they are attained, what they do, where to train up a skill, what weapon is weak to which and how to negate the advantages (I'm looking at you, Combat Triangle, you're a dead giveaway), and excessive detail about PvP when just the History section is sufficient. Within Combat alone, the first three sections (of five) should each have no more than a single paragraph with links to appropriate articles. The Level/Skills section, for example, should link go with something like "RuneScape players can advance to level 126. As they level up, they are able to improve various attributes" with enough expansion to take it to a paragraph, then slotted into the Gameplay section of the RuneScape main article. With the Gods article, the article freely states in the lead section that Gods have little impact on Gameplay, so anything beyond what is in the lead and first three paragraphs of the Main Gods section of that article shouldn't be considered notable even within the context of RuneScape gameplay! Now, compare Gielinor against FF8world. Do you see why I would sooner call for the deletion of Gielinor than FF8world? Gielinor is simply a list of the locations. It provides no real-world context of how it was created, no in-universe context of the culture or general geography( ie, FF8 article names the continents; Gielinor is like only being told the names of all 200-odd countries in the world and their position relative to each other). It provides no brief in-universe summary of its history. FF8world provides no summary of the deities native to that world, because they have no relevance to the notability of FF8 or its universe. Ong elvin 16:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate note, ever heard of the flawed Pokemon Test? And this essay also goes along the same lines as the Pokemon test - similar articles elsewhere does not mean these articles are appropriate. Ong elvin 16:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say (again) that for a MMORPG things like character skills and geography are more salient topics than they are for console games. FF8 contains something like 100-200 hours of playtime, with plenty of narrative scenes thrown in. MMORPGs are far more extensive, requiring several thousands of hours of gameplay. There is a different quality to the play experience, you can't just read a walkthrough to complete the game, or enter a cheat code to improve your character. The game worlds are bigger, there are more player options, and there is a social layer that does not exist on the console. I would say the combat triangle is one of the most salient pieces of information contained in the current article, because it tells you why the balance of combat skills is meaningful. And every MMORPG article should have at least 1000 words on PvP issues -- if you don't think PvP is a major issue for these games, go talk to Raph Koster. Shoehorn 20:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quantity of information doesn't change the fact that the scope of information in these articles applies to them all equally - unless it's of any importance outside the game, then it's not worth including. It could give 1000 hours of varied play time, or 15 seconds of Pong. If CNN reports on how amazing a game is, and how varied its 1000 hours of gameplay is, then we can talk about including it (but not in excessive detail). --Cheeser1 21:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well here is the real mystery of WP policy: How do you make a judgement about the relevance of information about a subject without taking into account the relevance of information to that subject? If you go in favor of "about", you fall prey to marketing and propaganda, and WP is unbalanced. If you go in favor of "to", you end up with Episode guides and lists of Final Fantasy characters, and WP is full of trivia. It looks like we have to rely on common reasoning to make these decisions, and a negative example of Runescape not appearing on CNN is not good reasoning. Shoehorn 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CaptainVindaloo: the difference with those articles you've listed is that they all prove their own real-world notability - look at the references. You won't find an FA, or indeed a GA, like these Runescape articles, because it's not possible for an article to achieve these ratings without the basic requirement of sources to prove notability. Miremare 23:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all those references the FF Character articles are quotes from the game. All their notability is derived from the game, they're an important facet of the game's universe, and because of their length, were forked off into a subarticle. I think the same thing applies here, this is not just seen in computer games but in other areas, such as Main characters of Megatokyo and Category:The Office (US). It's not like this is Terran Battlecruiser. This isn't other crap exists, this is how Wikipedia does it. - hahnchen 13:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of in-game sources in Characters of FF8, as is to be expected with such an article, however there are also many reliable, independent non-game sources too. These establish notability, and are why it was able to become an FA (and not get deleted along the way). That is the glaring difference between the listed FAs and these Runescape articles which demonstrate zero notability. Miremare 17:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Pop culture and gaming articles like these are one of the main strengths of Wikipedia. World War I is covered way better elsewhere than on Wikipedia but good gad for Wikipedia's Katamari Damacy (random gaming FA) page! Trying looking up Katamari Damacy on Brittanica!--Eqdoktor 06:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: However, that doesn't mean we should write articles on every single aspect of every single topic in existence. Wikipedia is not a game guide; these articles are written to inform players on how to play the game. It is not helpful the general reader due to the lack of real-world relevance and notability. We are writing articles, not instruction manuals. --Scottie_theNerd 15:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article focuses on a games combat and should be deleted or removed. We should delete it.Gavegave30 16:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)givegive30[reply]

What's the difference? --Scottie_theNerd 16:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Gavegave30 (talk · contribs) is a suspected sockpuppet of banned user Maplefan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). See ANI report, user creation and block logs and (active) Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Maplefan. CaptainVindaloo t c e 22:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What? Runescape is a very popular game. Therefore, these pages do have their notablity and are important to the encyclopedia. See: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Wikipedia has 2 million articles and doesn't have place for these 4 articles? I don't think so. Also, the references from the runescape website is reliable and enough for the article to be kept. 65.94.219.62 00:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, parts of the articles are pretty self explanatory, especially with appropriate links. Attributes? Yeah, we know what they are. Melee, Ranged, and Magical combat? Uhh... all those paragraphs spent explaining could be shortened to three sentences extracted from a random dictionary. Does one really need any further explanation? Oh, and those three styles of combat are generic; there's nothing special about it; it'd be a rare RPG that doesn't feature those three. Combat Triangle? Yeah, sure, you can argue all you want about how the balancing is notable, but it's not. The point of a "Combat Triangle" is to give characters specific bonuses, regardless of attempts to negate the effects. Just say that there's a rock-paper-scissors effect at work and be done with it. Ong elvin 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to give an example of notability not being inherited. Let's compare RuneScape to Bill Gates. Both are notable enough for their own encylopaedia articles, no point arguing that. An encyclopaedia should provide information with a level of generality. No highly specific information. Now let's say we have Bill Gates' phone number. Is his phone number useful? Yes. To the general reader? No. Is the phone number valid and verifiable. Yes. Does that make a difference? No. It doesn't change the fact that Bill Gates' phone number is not encyclopaedic, unless you count an encyclopaedia whose sole scope is Bill Gates. Likewise, the articles nominated for deletion here can be compared to Bill Gates' phone number. Valid, verifiable, and useless to the general reader. I could say the same for the article on FFXI combat. Ong elvin 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


useful to the general reader? yes. i believe this article is very useful to the general reader because the general reader is most likely a newer member of the 'Runescape' community looking for news about Runescape. In-Game players can be abusive and rude to the newer players, generally unhelpful, leading to Runescape players looking elsewhere. Runescape is the most massively played MultiPlayer game on the computer, and is accessed by millions of accounts a month. Generally, a large portion of those players need help and due to WikiPedia being such a mainstream source for information, many look here. In short; the deletion of these articles would hurt anyone looking for runescape information. 8:43 PST, September 30 2007 (**PLEASE NOTE** : this is my first post, so tell me if i did anything wrong or if i can touch up on a few things) Gocaesarsgo31 00:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an incorrect definition of the general reader. The general reader is not a newbie of the game. A general reader is more like with no vested interest in reading the article, no particular reason. Granted, a new player would likely look here for help, but these articles should be transwikied, and a link provided within the main article. Just take a look at how MapleStory does it. Far more encyclopaedic and proper. RuneScape articles on the main Wikipedia should not cater to these newer players. RuneScape articles on gaming Wikis are under no such restriction. Transwikying the information results in no loss of information if you properly link the article. On the contrary, it can result in a gain of information because you are no longer under the restrictions of regular Wikipedia, and are free to provide more information targeted at newbies. But the moment you write information intended to specifically help players of the game, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Ong elvin 00:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit like requiring the article on Pride and Prejudice to not be useful to anybody who is actually reading the book. It also sets an unrealistic expectation for how editors should approach articles, discouraging anyone from adding new information to any article without first double checking that the information hasn't been intentionally left out of the article as "too useful to a minority audience". In fact this entire AfD (like the many before it) is an attempt to subvert the normal editing flow of these articles, where some people add details, some people fix cruft and vandalism, and others rewrite them to make them more coherent. Instead of requesting the interested parties to improve the articles by requesting citations, showing notability, and so on, some bureaucratic buckethead just sees five articles and decides they all need to go, willfully ignoring common courtesy as well as two or three years of archived AfD discussions because, well, who knows why? Should I point out that it has been less than 3 months since the last AfD for these articles? Would it be gauche to point out that this AfD was written by an account created less than six months ago? Shoehorn 08:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read between the lines Shoehorn. I said "specifically to help players." There is nothing wrong with information that helps the general reader, or with real-world contextual information. That said, the Combat and Skills articles are catered specifically to the player, not the general reader. Ong elvin 09:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Shoehorn: Yes, it would be quite gauche to point that out, unless you're attempting to make some kind of point relevant to anything? It's more than a little gauche to descend into personal attacks just because you don't have any real argument, not to mention amusingly hypocritical to do so directly before accusing me of having "wilfully ignored common courtesy". And there's no need to point out it's been less than three months since the last AfD either, as that was the first thing that I did in the nomination. And I nominated four articles, not five. Would it be gauche to enquire as to whether you actually read the nomination before jumping in with an argument that amounts to "keep Runescape is notable"? Miremare 15:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zezima? Y'know that there's absolutely no mention of him in the RuneScape article, right? In fact, Zezima shouldn't even have a redirect to begin with! Ong elvin 04:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. Merging loses information, which we do NOT want. Gocaesarsgo31 04:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Runescape community is not the Wikipedia community. The information can be transwikied and hosted on sites like Encyclopedia Gamia, where such information is needed. Longer articles are not inherently more difficult to read, and if anything, making multiple articles makes information harder to access to to the greater number of navigational links. The only excuse for not reading a longer article is simple laziness. You seem to be making an odd assumption that the general reader has actually clicked on the article. WP:INTERESTING is not a valid argument; we are concerned with what is encyclopedic.
so much for wikipedia being your "one stop shop" for all the information you ever wanted to know. i don't know about you, but i like having my PDA, cellphone, and digital camera all built into the same device. i guess you feel differently? that a cellphone is a cellphone and should never try to be anything else because, like wikipedia, if it tries to be something else, it'll (obviously) bring down the whole?
oh - and thank god for hddvd vs bluray. why should anyone care if one goes the way of the betamax? we have multiple options, now, and multiple options should always be taken advantage of. just like on wikipedia. yay! standardization is crap, anyway. screw countries that use the same wall outlet everywhere - they make life horrible 209.209.214.5 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And Zezima? Until you provide independent sources that support Zezima's notability, there's no purpose in even having a redirect to Runescape. I could be the most talked about person in Braybrook, Victoria, but unless there is substantial evidence that I am in fact a recognised contributor to the community, I'm not going to get an article or even a redirect. --Scottie_theNerd 04:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of Icefrog? azazel? redscull? Clan TDG? I can tell you that I know who they are, and they are definitely deserving of full articles of their glory. Icefrog is the creator of DotA, a custom map of WC3. azazel is the creator of NotD:A, another custom map. redscull is the creator of SWAT, yet another custom map. Clan TDG is a clan of experienced WC3 mapmakers. Do you see the lunacy of even mentioning Zezima? Ong elvin 09:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, i don't think people deserve articles. they may merit an article, but do they deserve one? i don't think anyone deserves an article. just nitpicking... 209.209.214.5 12:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't see any lunacy whatsoever. Let me show you Zezima's popularity in the online world. When searching "zezima" on youtube, I found AT LEAST 21,000 videos that were tagged "zezima", and perhaps more because I believe that is the maximum search results youtube lets you see. One video that has been viewed 1.3 million times is "ZEZIMA PK'N TRIP", showing Zezima's significance. Also, I wanted to show you how much of a web 'icon', so to speak, he is. Zezima has 21,000 or more videos, and subjects like Osama Bin Laden has 4940, and Burma has 3350. Does this show you his signifance Gocaesarsgo31 10:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is nuts. Youtube hits do not establish notability. Seriously. --Cheeser1 11:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't tell me that Zezima is more notable than Osama bin Laden. --Scottie_theNerd 11:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits don't establish notability. Google up El Dorado. Go on. Do it. You'll get around 1 million hits. Now go Google up RuneScape. 6 million hits. Now do a search on YouTube for O RLY. 400 hits. If you know your history, and are able to put 2 and 2 together, you'll realise why your YouTube searching does not in any way establish notability. The O RLY owl started small, but now it's known in mainstream society. Does that mean the wealth/lack of YouTube hits signifies existence/lack of notability? No. Ong elvin 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a good read about what notability is not. Specifically the bit that says that notability is not the same as fame or importance. Also the bit that says notability is not a blanket; this is why all arguments on Runescape combat being notable because of the parent topic, are not arguments. Ong elvin 14:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that no-one seems to have rebutted the citation of WP:SIZE in favour of keeping. Well, I'll tell you here and now that if you're going to cite that, use some common sense. WP:SIZE is obviously written under the assumption that the information to be split has notability. So first prove that the information on Runescape combat and skills have notability, then worry about WP:SIZE. On a related note, let me turn your attention to a gaming guide, and what doesn't belong. GASP! Information about RuneScape that doesn't belong in a game guide all about RuneScape?! EGADS! What is the world coming to? Well then... go find a professionally written and published game guide. Go on. Do it. Now flip to the page that details the game's development history, its critical reception, sales figures, and release date. What, you can't? Oh, yes, that's right. The point I'm proving here is that even a game guide doesn't indiscriminately print any information about a game. It still picks appropriate information, whether printed or online. Now, in terms of Wikipedia, if you deleted these four pages, Wikipedia would lose nothing. Ong elvin 14:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding size and sub-articles, from WP:FICT: "Even these articles need real-world information to prove their notability". Miremare 15:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I don't really understand your point, other than it being about game guides. Citing examples generally works well in this regard, in my experience. A game guide statement is something like: "to be able to use Rune platebodies, you need to defeat the dragon Elvarg in the Dragon Slayer quest. For this you will need to go to wossname in Edgville to start the quest, get an anti-dragonfire shield from whatshisface in Lumbridge (forgive me, its been ages since I did Dragon Slayer), get a map from ... yadda yadda ... make sure to wear the shield when fighting the dragon, rangers and mages can hide behind the walls in the cave ... etc etc." The statements "to wear Rune platebodies, one must complete a quest" or "iron is tougher than bronze" aren't gameguidey (if they were, then so would be the statement "RuneScape is controlled by pointing and clicking"), they are simple statements of fact that would be of little use to a regular player. The odd gameguidey statement doesn't condemn the whole article either; its ludicrously simple to fix them. I don't see any problem with gameguide statements in any of these articles, however. Wouldn't you also think that only demonstrably notable topics could grow to an unwieldy size? A non-notable topic is very unlikely to have enough information to be a problem. CaptainVindaloo t c e 17:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why stray away from our topic? but indeed, if challenged, i will. although youtube hits do not officially show significance to a subject, they signify an importance in the online world. i am in no way, shape, or form saying Zezima is more notable than Osama Bin Laden, that'd be nuts. However, Zezima is still big in the online world and so is Runescape Skills, Gods, ect,. Ong Elvin, if we were to follow your advice about game guides, why have a Runescape page at all? Or Halo 3 for that matter. Gears Of War, toss that too. If we aren't allowed to post information about a game, than how do we factually describe something? Gocaesarsgo31 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between RuneScape and the others is that these articles are not concise. Just look at Halo 3 and Gears of War. They dedicate information to Gameplay, sure, I'm not against it, but dedicating a whole separate article? Those two topics do not do that; they have wisely summarised the relevant gameplay information into a concise form. The editors of those articles know that no matter how notable Halo3/GoW themselves are, their combat systems are far from notable enough to warrant an article. Put simply, you must establish notability to create an article. You haven't done that. Notability doesn't tell you what you can and can't put in an article, once you establish notability with real-world context. What you do put in an article is subject to verifiability. To be sure, your information is verifiable, but that only protects your content from deletion. However, the topic is not notable, and thus the article must be deleted. Do not confuse verfiability with notability; that is what the Keep voters seem to keep doing. Ong elvin 01:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topics are very much notable, and for sure notable enough to be put into their own article. In just the 'runescape' article, there is no information that we could find in these articles up for deletion. In such a large online community (Runescape), readers will scavenge every rock to find a bit of Runescape information. WikiPedia can help by realizing the notability of the articles (explaining tough concepts about Runescape) by keeping these articles. If we eliminate and eliminate, soon we will find every "branching" article deleted, dismissed, and thrown away. Detail is important, lets keep it that way Gocaesarsgo31 03:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Explaining tough concepts" is exactly the sort of thing that goes well in a game guide. As I already said, Wikipedia does not cater to the player. What you just described is exactly that - catering to the player rather than the general reader. And why are you not reading the MapleStory article already? That is a living example of why these articles should be moved. MapleStory has a large community as well, but you don't see five separate articles for MapleStory; no, you see just one article, and then another twenty articles which wouldn't go to AfD. Why? Because they're on a separate Wiki project which caters to those articles. You're not losing information by deleting these articles, you are improving Wikipedia's quality. And as has been mentioned countless times, if you don't like all these AfDs, then move it to a StrategyWiki. Actually, someone said they did that just earlier. Ong elvin 04:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you can only vote once per AFD Goceasars, I've removed the duplicate 'keep' above and emboldened your first keep for the closing admin to see more clearly. 86.138.198.93 09:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not cater for the player. StrategyWiki caters for the player. Encyclopedia Gamia caters for players. Sites like GameSpot, IGN and GameFAQs cater for players. Wikipedia does not. There are countless places where deep analysis of game mechanics belong. Why must they belong on Wikipedia? --Scottie_theNerd 08:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CS California has transwikied the combat article to Encyclopedia Gamia, but the other three aren't there (that I can see). That said, the Gods are already covered by the RS wiki. 86.138.198.93 09:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly, sorry about the second Keep, I wasn't sure if I had already voted and I am too lazy to scroll back up :) . However, may I explain "explain tough concepts about Runescape" which i send in my previous note. What these articles do is create background information that are extremely general to tell you ABOUT runescape skills and all the other topics. Look at the runescape skills topic for example (if you'd like, open in a new window and read along with me). The Runescape Skills topic tells you about the different skills of Runescape. It classifies it into different changes, and briefly describes each skill. Let's look at the agility description, shall we:


Agility Agility is a members' skill used to access remote areas and to take shortcuts, especially in the wilderness and on some quests. Many areas that contain slayer monsters have agility shortcuts to help higher level players reach the monsters they wish to slay more quickly. As players train the agility skill, their stamina regeneration rates increase and slows the rate at which their run energy reduces whilst running. Agility is the only member skill that retains its effects when players are on free to play servers. [citation needed] The agility skill was released on 12 December 2002.[11] As you can see, there is no "game guide" information posted here. This excerpt does all of the following: briefly describe the agility skills, explain how agility is used, and explains when agility was made [Wikipedia - Runescape Skills].

No game guide information here, none. Gocaesarsgo31 10:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page o pages similar to it as it hs helped me and many other people wit its accurate facts. Furthermore i dont see why some page about a game should not be part of wikipedia as it is not a guide as such but a page on the mechanics of the game which help peple like me understand what makes a succefull game today as runescape is famous fo its success.a cocerned wiki user 02/10/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.11.192.26 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as stated numerous times in this debate, the mechanics of the game are not notable. No independent sources have been provided to suggest that Runescape skills are, by themselves, worth of their own article. Ditto with Runescape combat. If the information in these articles have helped you, they can be read at specialised Wikis such as StrategyWiki. Just because you found it useful doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia.
Cocaesarsgo31: you seem to have a selective definition of what a game guide is. The passage you quoted is a thorough explanation of a single attribute in RuneScape. Look up any decent game guide on RuneScape; even on GameFAQs if you have to. Any decent game guide will have thorough descriptions of what is attribute is. The description you quoted is far from brief. On Wikipedia, the general reader doesn't need to know exactly what agility does. They don't need to know how its raised. In fact, the general reader doesn't even need to know what the exact attributes are; only the general concept of what they cover and how they are generally trained. Yes, the information is factual; no one is arguing that. However, it is written for a specific audience: RuneScape players. Please explain what a non-player would gain from reading what is essentially a player's handbook on RuneScape. --Scottie_theNerd 16:23, 2 October 2007 (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.
More