Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City (Thief)


 * 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 to delete. W.marsh 17:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

City (Thief)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fictional city from a computer game series; pure game guide material with no assertion of encyclopedic significance. Stormie 07:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia not a video game manual. --Victor falk 11:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep' You won't find any of the material in the article in a game manual for any game in the series. It is not a game manual, it is a collection of observations made from people who have played the Thief games, based on quotes and information established within the games from in-game books, papers, and quotes from characters (BTW, any information on how the cite something from inside a game, would be appreciated).


 * The article was created to discuss fictional world shown in the Thief games, and reduce the main article, Thief (series) down to just discussing game. A section in that article was moved to the new article, and original section redirects to the new page. I've also moved the City page to Locations in the Thief Series (Computer Game) as suggested by someone in the in talk page.


 * I wasn't aware that articles dealing with category:Video game locations, Category:Fictional countries or Category:Fantasy worlds were not allowed in the Wikipedia. If they aren't then perhaps most of those articles should be deleted? If they are allowed, then I don't see how this article breaks any policies. Though perhaps it needs to be cleaned up by various authors that originally wrote the content, in order to raise its quality. But I don't see why it should be deleted, if other pages like Daventry (King's Quest), or Hyrule can exist.Splintercell007 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, basically, it's Original Research? --Stormie 07:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya, I think so, that might describe it well. Isn't there a template for that? Also, how does one cite a specific quote from within a game, or level to avoid it being considered "original research".?Splintercell007 10:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note, I found Wikipedia's citation method for video game refereces, Template:Cite video game, and have added citations to the article.--Splintercell007 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as gamecruft. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a convincing argument. Clarityfiend 19:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The usage of gamecruft or derivatives is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument for deletion based on existing Wikipedia policies. See, Fancruft.


 * I don't know what gamecruft is exactly, and I can't find an article on it in wikipedia giving a straightforward definition on it, and I don't see it listed as "reasons to delete articles", infact the above article says it isn't. If it is part of wikipedia policy to delete so-called "gamecruft", I would like a link to it and its definition. I'd recommend that if such stuff must be deleted due to wikipedian policy, that we start adding deletion template to other pages that are "gamecruft" by whatever definition it uses.Splintercell007 20:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm going to have to agree with Splintercell007 here. We do forbid game guides, but emphasis here is on "guide". The relevant bit is specifically about instructions, tips, strategies, et cetera, none of which is present here. There's nothing against content about things in video games - we have that as featured articles. Neither is this OR by any definition. Although there's been a surprising amount of confusion over what constitutes OR, the page limits our scope to describing things, forbidding interpretation or original analysis. This article appears to contain only data that is apparent to the layman in the games themselves, which is specifically allowed in the policy. Forbidding the use of primary sources - the works - in writing about fiction is not a workable option. Have you ever tried to describe the plot of, say, Romeo and Juliet completely from reviews and analyses, without the actual play? Me neither, and I'd rather not do so in the future. And even if the article had OR or game guide content, this AfD is nicely illustrative of the significance. It'll be fixed before the deadline, no worries. ;)  What Splinter describes above is a valid spinout, a common practice of spreading a subject over multiple articles when one can't adequately cover it. Cramming everything on a topic in one article can be a highly non-optimal solution. For examples of spinouts in use, refer to our article on the major country or capital of your choice. The relevant rule guideline is WP:FICT, which currently states that "sub-articles are sometimes born for technical reasons of length or style", as Splinter mentioned happening, and should be considered an extension of the original article. All in all, I see no problems with the article. "Cruft" when unaccompanied is no more than a statement of personal dislike, and I rue the word for giving such arguments a veneer of credibility. Finally: Yes, I do talk like this. --Kizor 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.