Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic (RuneScape)

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. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Simple as that. The RuneScape Wiki has an article on magic, so go edit that if you want to keep this article.Richard 21:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's mostly a list of items, alongside other FAQ-esque material. Nifboy 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Nifboy 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a game guide. Akradecki 22:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Delete and redirect to RuneScape skills as was done with Construction (RuneScape). --Nishkid64 23:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It is not useful to non-RuneScape-players--Ed^{talk c E} 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:NOT. This indeed is another fancrufty RS-related Wiki; it definitely has no place here. Makoto 00:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge first section, IE the part before the table of contents, into combat, then redirect. QuagmireDog 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can I humbly request that the Wilderness, Armour and Weaponry articles are not listed for AFD until such a time as their contents (or at least the subject matter) has been rewritten for the Combat article. A lot of RS articles did need to go or be swiftly merged, but we're reaching a point of unsustainable deletions and risking information loss and the frustration of those who have been wrestling with these articles for months on end. Progress is all good, but these things are going to need some time. QuagmireDog 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for fancruft and game guides. Look at the fancruft notice on the talk page. "Lengthy, detailed descriptions of items." is not allowed. Who wants to explain to me why there are "magic-related armour" and "magic-related weapons" sections? Audacious One 04:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Peephole 11:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the relevant information (of which there was little) has now been transferred to the RuneScape combat article. This article and the others which could be merged into combat have had a lot of time and effort expended on them. The result is a series of polished game-guides which repeat what is readily available on fan sites without as much pertinent info but in a much more readable format. It would be a lot easier to build up fewer articles with the slices of relevant material added from articles to be deleted. Servicing such a number of highly editted articles has proven to take up vast amounts of time which could be spent actually elevating the needed articles. I struck through my previous vote, now that it comes down to the wire I see nothing but a helpful introduction (merged) and a stack of NN. QuagmireDog 13:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. Hemhem20X6 14:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, and also, wikipedia is not a repository of crap. Moreover, I question the notability of RuneScape, the parent article.--Frenchman113 on wheels! 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Ixfd64 19:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- No explanation has been offered as to how the deletion of this article will improve Wikipedia. Runescape itself can serve as a reference to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Furthermore, this is not a game guide -- game guides provide advice and instruction on how to play video games, while this article mere treats magic in Runescape as a factual matter. There's no policy which prohibits the treatment of video games in considerable detail. John254 03:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only content from Magic that isn't now contained in combat or explained in other articles is the needless list of weapons and armour. Information on the ins-and-outs of individual items is very easily obtainable from fansites or the RS knowledgebase and in a blunt format with all the stats which we cannot apply here anyway. At the time the AFD was listed these were not merged, and it's right to stand back and look it again, as your comment encouraged me to do. Now that the other information is merged, the article has carried out its purpose and becomes part of the combat article which in time can be built up to a high-standard. Despite all this, it would have been better if this information was merged properly and time was given to that process before the AFD process began. If one of the other articles which could be merged to combat is listed to AFD before that process is done, I shall be voting keep to stop this running around. QuagmireDog 15:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that ^ I have added more material from Magic into RuneScape combat, rewriting a lot of it, and will continue to do so tomorrow (a little sleep would go a long way). I'm hoping this will prove satisfactory to all parties. QuagmireDog 00:56, 5 September 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.