Talk:Spaceships of Eve Online/Archive 2

please don't mass delete a large portion of an article during an AFD
I read the information, and see it perfectly valid. If you wish to delete 90% of an article, talk about it on the talk page. If the consensus in the AFD is to keep the article, then please keep all of it, not just a small token amount. And those who want to delete it, wish to do so based on the subject alone, so it doesn't matter what is in it.  D r e a m Focus  03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Turning the article back into half game guide content by weight is not helping to rescue it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't rescue an article by allowing 90% of it to be erased. And the arguments for Keep were before the mass deletion, people arguing it was fine.   D r e a m Focus  07:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The material that was erased constituted a game guide. One does not need to know the difference between a Force Recon and a Combat Recon to have a general understanding of what EVE is and how it works. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He's talking about the recent removal by User:Moritheil of all of the information listed under the Tech I heading. Before that, the article did seem to have some merit, giving a brief synopsis of the major ship types. Now it's just junk. All that stuff regarding Tech II ships was removed quite a while back.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, okay. Can you argue to the merits of the content removed, or were you just objecting to the article containing a reduced number of bytes? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Without the removed content, the article is practically worthless, since all it's doing is mentioning the types of ship. At least when you have a small description of the base Tech I ship types, it gives some sort of understanding of the game. We don't need to have details on all of the Tech II, III, Faction ships etc., but at least have some details on the base types for the article to make even some sense.  TheChrisD  Rants • Edits 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)