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. If there is sourced content that people would like to merge back, although I don't see much, the text is available on request. Sandstein 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Standard arguments for deleting video game stuff, pretty much. Cruft, and issues with verifiability of the material. There was a previous AfD, but the arguments seemed to be mostly "The main article is going to be too long", which I don't really think is a good reason to keep anything. In the interest of full disclosure, there was this, too, but it was such a mess I don't really think it matters. Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 05:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MER-C 06:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm tempted to say that this should be an invalid nomination, as you don't actually cite any reason for deletion. To the point of this being cruft; In my opinion the article largely remains clear of that allegation per Portal:RuneScape/Fancruftguide. The article isn't particularly well-referenced but that should be taken to the talk page, and not necessarily used as your sole reason to AfD it.
  To me it seems that the article survived the first AfD not because if it was merged to the main article it would be too long, but because it was created from the article, in the first place, for that reason. If it was a suggested split of passable content that had already survived in the main article, and was deemed by some editors to be worthy of merging back, why isn't it capable of surviving on it's own?
• Delete per User:Bwithh-- wtfunkymonkey 06:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't everyone love it if "no good reason for deletion" was a criterion for invalidating a nomination? Anyway, you misunderstood my point, I think. I have no issue with the fact that it happens to not be sourced now, I simply do not think that it can be sourced, ever. Besides, it was split from the main article simply because it was too long. I doubt a discussion of removing the content entirely ever came up then. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but "no good reason for deletion" is a valid criteria for invalidating a nomination. There is a very clear guide and criteria for an AfD, if you can't come up with a reason for the nom then the nom itself is invalid. wtfunkymonkey 06:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it isn't. Many, many, bad articles would be kept if someone who didn't like the nominator's argument could make it invalid. Now, if you can show that I somehow made this nomination in bad faith, or that I don't understand what AfD is for, that's another matter. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I'm not entirely sure how it avoids being fancruft due to a guide made by involved parties (which I make no claim not to be, by the way). -Amarkov ^blah_edits 06:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think this is cruft - as my understanding of cruft is that it usually involves excessive fanboy levels of attention to specific obscure detail. No, the problem with this article is that it is purely generic. Even if referenced with verifiable sources, this article has no encyclopedic notability as its content could be about any one of hundreds or even thousands of online game communities (just need to switch the specific names). Multi-national player base? In-game jargon? Chat forums? Censorship of player communications deemed inappropriate? Moderators with different levels and powers? Fan websites? Players moaning about things being unfair? Nothing special about any of this. Bwithh 07:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Now see, this would be a more appropriate argument than the one provided by the nominator -- wtfunkymonkey 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bwithh (disagree with nom) Ck lostsword|^queta!|_Suggestions? 13:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Come on. An article about a mildly popular MMORPG's community? You can't get much less verifiable than that. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, there is a little bit of reliable commentary out there. Here, for example. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral/Merge back into RuneScape - it was only split to keep the length down to satisfy the folks at PR/GA; some remarks on the community are necessary and encyclopedic, and there's plenty of space in the main article now that we've been through it with a hedgetrimmer/machinegun. We may just have to concede to going over that 35kB limit. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 15:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • We were trying to keep it under 35K? Wow, that's... low. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 15:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Damn, is it 35? Or something else? Can't remember. >_< CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Article size; part of the Manual of Style, asks for a limit of around 32-35. That's what it is. I know it seems small, but that's the beauty of HTML. I once managed to fit an entire website (albeit a rubbish one I made in GCSE IT) on a single 1.44Mb disk. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's outdated, seeing as the mentioned warning now doesn't show up until around 50. Regardless, I think a large part of this should be cut out, so it shouldn't add that much. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?♥meow!} 20:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. 0L1 Talk Contribs 21:45 26/11/2006 (UTC)
• Smerge with the main article. Article size should not be a concern in this case (size should never be a factor when debating whether or not content is included). --- RockMFR 00:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge then delete - Merge any usable information back into Runescape & then the article outright... Spawn Man 00:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per nom. I don't think anything about Runescape should have an article, its all fancruft, see this list -- Coasttocoast 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... okay... you go do that. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ya, can you say 9th most popular page in all of wikipedia??? Try to get that through Afd then! → p00rleno (lvl 77) ←ROCKS^C_RS 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol? I played Runescape too, problably more than you have, but you can't keep an article just becuase you like the game. All this runescapecruft shouldn't be on Wikipedia.--Coasttocoast 01:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've probably played Runescape more than both of you, and I'm a member of the Wikiproject, too. I don't know exactly what point I meant to make there, but whatever. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I do think Runescape itself is encyclopedically notable- certainly more than most online multiplayer games. Very popular (with an astonishingly highly edited (or vandalized) wikipedia page[1]and the Wall Street Journal wrote about it as if it was England's MySpace. I tried playing it once but I don't have the attention span. Beats World of Warcraft any day though. Bwithh 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fancruft.--Richard 21:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not fancruft at all - it is encyclopedic remarks upon an online community. But as Bwithh says; there isn't enough here that aren't generic MMO characteristics to justify a separate article anymore. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete; There is some important info here that should be added to the main RuneScape article, although I agree that parts of it are not important to the article. If those parts were removed, it'd be too short anyway. Mamyles 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete or expand. Currently, it's too generic to have its own article, and all the information there could be easily merged. However, there's much more that we could add that's not generic or fancruft; this could make it into an article worth keeping. Pyrospirit ^{Talk Contribs} 22:18, 29 November 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.