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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a game guide and little else. Does not comply with WP:NOT (lists of information). I fail to see how this is encyclopedic material (or proportional to it's value). MidgleyDJ 08:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or smerge into main article. This article was nominated for deletion about 2 months ago, and it appears they have worked very hard to try to make it less of a game guide since then. I was very surprised that it wasn't pure fancruft, after reading it. However, its still full of unverified information and lacks citations. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 10:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP! This article is extremely useful for any RuneScape user, I myself being one, and since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, you just make articles that reference to everyone - even though you may have a different oppinion on the game, leave the article here because it is not about the game, it's for the users of the game, if you don't like the game leave the article here, because it will be most likely re-written, and as you can see there was a lot of time and effort put into this guide. Wikiwookie01 9:15, 24 October 2006 (EST)

• Delete or merge Percy Snoodle 10:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is accurate although could do with some citations to appease those who don't play runescape themselves and satisfy WP standards. -- timdew (^Talk) 11:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep! Accurate article, fancruft being ko'd day by day, and otherwise, meriging is out of the question (RuneScape is too large for more), and too many durastic changes will wreck the article. I even thing Wikipedia:Ignore all rules might apply. → p00rleno (lvl 77/80) ←ROCKS^C_AO~~~~~

• Delete, game guide. This sort of information doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Recury 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment; what happened to that merge proposal with this article and RuneScape armour into RuneScape combat? Last time I looked, it was ticking over nicely. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 13:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Trim and merge into RuneScape combat. It has some good information, but too much is just fancruft, and a game guide, for that. -Amarkov ^babble 14:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Transwiki to a gaming wiki. Wikipedia should only have one article for RuneScape, and it's RuneScape. Everything else is just game-guide-class material and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It should be on a gaming wiki. See every List of (insert game here) (insert information type here) that's been AFD for all the precedence. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as the 493 Pokemon creature articles, not one of which has been deleted? -Amarkov ^babble 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I would fully support the deletion of every one of the 493 pokemon! --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 02:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't ask if you would support their deletion. My point is that they haven't been deleted, so you can claim no such precedent. Now, if you listed a few on AfD, and they actually got deleted, I might accept that it's just nobody cares enough to nominate them.-Amarkov ^babble 02:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warcraft III units and structures & and all AFDs referenced in this decision, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in the Halo universe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2142,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles in Battlefield 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 and Yuri's Revenge units and structures, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicles in Unreal Tournament 2004. Yes, I can claim precedence. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 03:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precedents work only if there are no precedents that lead to the opposing opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon game mechanics, I didn't need to do any research to get. Precedents lean both ways, so they are irrelevant. -Amarkov ^babble 03:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except that the precedence that you're citing is for game mechanics, not lists of game items. Your precedence does not directly counter the precedence that I've cited. What will matter is whether this article falls under game mechanics or lists of game items. I think it's a list of game items, and that's why I'm sticking to my decision. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 06:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay then, let's assume for the sake of argument that my precedent is entirely irrelevant, and all of yours are. What if I disagree on the validity of the arguments used in those AfDs? -Amarkov ^babble 14:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing I can really say about that. That's your decision. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What if we were to rewrite this article, either on its current page or in RuneScape combat, not as a simple list of weapons, but describing the types (ie, shortswords, longswords, battleaxes) of weapons available, the materials they can be made of, and their real-life historical context? See here, I've already started a bit of it. Not perfect but it's a start. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to Rewrite after seeing CaptainVindaloo's version. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 02:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems like a notable and reasonable topic. Everyking 04:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cribcage 05:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. No references (WP:NOR), too many gratuitious fair use GIFs (can readers really not imagine what shooting two arrows rapidly looks like without a visual aid???), too much detail, indiscriminate collection of items (WP:NOT). There have been many weapon lists deleted of late, and this is no different. None of these weapons scream notability at me. Having interesting names and strange powers does not make them notable outside the fanbase. As amazing as an axe with +20% damage is to a RuneScape player, to anyone else it's just a flippin' axe. If the axe played the Star Wars theme when swung or something, yes, then I could say it's notable. As it is, these weapons are the same as any magical/enchanted weapon in any number of RPGs/MMOs. Garrett^Talk 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - My feelings on this are more or less the same as Garretts. It's too much of a Walled Garden that no-one who is not already in the know is going to want to look at. (And if your already in the know why would you be looking up what you already know?) Besides, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. The Kinslayer 08:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, belongs on the runescape wiki and/or GameFAQS. Unlikely anyone but the fans of the game would actually read this game guide article.--Andeh 13:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The Runescape guys have been cracking down on indiscriminant info added to articles which is great, props to them. However, a complete lack of independent sources can't really be overlooked. Wickethewok 16:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Slowly getting towards acceptable standards, give the article and the editors some time. J.J.Sagnella 11:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but work hard to improve.Hemhem20X6 18:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, wikipedia is not a substitute for a game guide. Combination 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to RuneScape_combat - even though I want the RuneScape series to stay, this is cruft and belongs better in the combat article, with some considerable work done to it. Agentscott00^(talk) 02:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to RuneScape_combat as above. Otherwise delete. I mean, why would I look for this information in an encyclopedia instead of looking for it in GameFAQs? --Alan Au 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I say Rewrite, then keep on its own page or merge into RuneScape combat, depending upon the resulting length. However, as a part of the combat article (which itself could be merged or turned into a RuneScape gameplay article), it will keep the article count down. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 00:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete, entire article is complete fancruft. For example the article goes into complete detail of special attack modes of something called a "Seercull bow", not encyclopedic -- Coasttocoast 05:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsalvageable, being an indiscriminate collection of information and for missing the point completely. Instead of fitting the weapons available in RS into some sort of context, this article merely lists some of them in such a way as to bore readers to tears or confuse them with impenetrable RS gabble. Most of the relevant information has already been ported to the RuneScape armour article, in preperation for a renaming to RuneScape equipment or something of the like.

Whilst that article is neither perfect nor complete, at least the information therein is organized in a way which might actually mean something to someone who doesn't log into RS on a regular basis. The weaponry article gives undue space to weapons which are scarcely used in RS because of the way the combat system is geared. Entire classes of weapons such as claws, warhammers and shortswords are redundant because they are either too slow in attack rate or do not offer the same damage potential of others. Devoting paragraphs of text to items which the vast majority of the game's players wouldn't touch with a bargepole seems to be slapping information into the article for the sake of it.

The sheer volume of edits continue to happen because the article is not set out as a WP article and the emphasis is on indiscriminate listing instead of actually giving information to non-players. Despite protestations that the article is undergoing clean-up (and I had a darned good go myself at one point), the article is still a mess and would need rewriting from the ground up (with most text deleted) in order to go anywhere. The armour article is there for improvement, I suggest this problematic fifth wheel is removed and put back in the trunk where it belongs. QuagmireDog 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keepis baisic over view although citing would be nice!Timator6 (lvl 25)Timator6

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.